| Literature DB >> 35573027 |
Evelyn E Gaiser1, John S Kominoski1, Diane M McKnight2, Christie A Bahlai3, Chingwen Cheng4, Sydne Record5, Wilfred M Wollheim6, Kyle R Christianson7, Martha R Downs8, Peter A Hawman9, Sally J Holbrook10, Abhishek Kumar11, Deepak R Mishra9, Noah P Molotch7, Richard B Primack12, Andrew Rassweiler13, Russell J Schmitt10, Lori A Sutter14.
Abstract
The period of disrupted human activity caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, coined the "anthropause," altered the nature of interactions between humans and ecosystems. It is uncertain how the anthropause has changed ecosystem states, functions, and feedback to human systems through shifts in ecosystem services. Here, we used an existing disturbance framework to propose new investigation pathways for coordinated studies of distributed, long-term social-ecological research to capture effects of the anthropause. Although it is still too early to comprehensively evaluate effects due to pandemic-related delays in data availability and ecological response lags, we detail three case studies that show how long-term data can be used to document and interpret changes in air and water quality and wildlife populations and behavior coinciding with the anthropause. These early findings may guide interpretations of effects of the anthropause as it interacts with other ongoing environmental changes in the future, particularly highlighting the importance of long-term data in separating disturbance impacts from natural variation and long-term trends. Effects of this global disturbance have local to global effects on ecosystems with feedback to social systems that may be detectable at spatial scales captured by nationally to globally distributed research networks.Entities:
Keywords: LTER; ecosystems; feedback; press; pulse; recovery; reorganization; resilience
Year: 2022 PMID: 35573027 PMCID: PMC9087370 DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.4019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecosphere Impact factor: 3.593
FIGURE 1A framework for understanding the pause in human activity resulting from a global pandemic as a disturbance event (a) that disrupts the existing ecosystem state dynamics (b) through direct and indirect effects on air, water soils, and biota (c, d) and via social–ecological feedback (e) that results in a reordered ecosystem state with different spatiotemporal dynamics (f). A key attribute of long‐term ecological research is the ability to capture whether this reorganization occurs, and if it does, how it affects resilience to subsequent disturbance and the potential for sustainable solutions (g). Simplified from Gaiser et al. (2020)
FIGURE 2Anticipated effects of the anthropause disturbance on terrestrial and aquatic biogeochemistry (y‐axis) and plant, wildlife, and agriculture (x‐axis) at U.S. Long Term Ecological Research network sites (see Table 1 for abbreviations and detailed rationale for the qualitative placement of sites)
Expected impacts of the anthropause on the Long Term Ecological Research sites depicted in Figure 2 based on interviews of site principal investigators
| Code | Site | Expected impacts |
|---|---|---|
| AND | Andrews Forest | Local effects minimal relative to fire but potential effects of increased local recreational traffic on wildlife |
| ARC | Arctic | Remote, global impact too low and transient; potential local wildlife and air quality effects of reductions in traffic on a major pipeline supply road |
| BES | Baltimore Ecosystem Study | Less traffic, more outdoor activities, use of parks, subtle impacts on urban ecosystems, substantial impacts on air quality |
| BLE | Beaufort Lagoon Ecosystem | Remote, global impact too low and transient |
| BNZ | Bonanza Creek | Remote, global biogeochemical impacts will be low; increased outdoor recreation (ATV and snow machines) and hunting might affect wildlife |
| CCE | California Current Ecosystem | Pelagic upwelling ecosystem with possible top‐down fishing impacts |
| CDR | Cedar Creek Ecosystem | Possible impacts on farming, wildlife, air, and water quality |
| CAP | Central Arizona‐Phoenix | Less traffic, more outdoor activities, use of parks, subtle impacts on urban ecosystems, substantial impacts on air quality |
| CWT | Coweeta | Biogeochemical responses to atmospheric change that could affect vegetation, wildlife, and stream ecology |
| FCE | Florida Coastal Everglades | Biogeochemical responses to atmospheric change and water management alterations |
| GCE | Georgia Coastal Ecosystems | Limited local effects, some impacts to wildlife populations |
| HFR | Harvard Forest | Subtle effects of air quality |
| HBR | Hubbard Brook | Effects of increased visitation on wildlife, subtle air quality change |
| JRN | Jornada Basin | Local effects of increased visitation |
| KBS | Kellogg Biological Station | No changes in experimental treatments; regional changes in agriculture intensity and site traffic |
| KNZ | Konza Prairie | Changes in agriculture and fire management related to pandemic |
| LUQ | Luquillo | Local impacts minimal (reduced traffic and visitation to recreation areas), possible biogeochemical impacts of global atmospheric changes |
| MCM | McMurdo Dry Valleys | Remote, global impact too low and transient |
| MCR | Moorea Coral Reef | Top‐down effects of changes in fishing |
| MSP | Minneapolis‐St. Paul | Less traffic, substantially more outdoor activities, use of parks, subtle impacts on urban ecosystems, substantial impacts on air quality |
| NWT | Niwot Ridge | Biogeochemical responses to atmospheric change that could affect vegetation, wildlife, and stream ecology |
| NTL | North Temperate Lakes | Top‐down effects of changes in fishing |
| NES | Northeast U.S. Shelf | Changes in runoff and air quality impacts |
| NGA | Northern Gulf of Alaska | Top‐down effects of changes in fishing |
| PAL | Palmer Antarctica | Remote, global impact too low and transient |
| PIE | Plum Island Ecosystems | Local effects on biogeochemistry and potential wildlife impacts of increased refuge visitation and traffic |
| SBC | Santa Barbara Coastal | Effects of changing coastal recreation on wildlife (especially birds) |
| SEV | Sevilleta | Subtle effects of air quality |
| VCR | Virginia Coast Reserve | Top‐down effects of changes in fishing and tourism |
FIGURE 3March–April averaged NO2 tropospheric column density for the contiguous United States in 2019 (a) and 2020 (b). Source: NO
FIGURE 4Trends in annual mean (a) chlorophyll a (mg/L) and (b) photosynthetically active radiation (PAR; nm) in Green Lake 4 at Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER). Measurements were taken mid‐lake at a 3‐m depth and up to six sampling events occurred per year although PAR sampling was suspended between 2005 and 2015. A smoothing function has been added to both figures for demonstration. No apparent effect of the anthropause was detectable at annual resolution of the data amid a decadal‐scale trend in both parameters
FIGURE 5Sixteen‐day mean enhanced vegetation index (EVI) for estuarine and marine wetlands within the Georgia Coastal Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) domain (USFWS National Wetland Inventory) (a). EVI is a well‐recognized index for evaluating vegetation “greenness,” and was derived from NASA MODIS MOD90GA surface reflectance. Wetland MODIS pixels were filtered following O'Connell et al. (2017) to remove intermittent tidal flooding effects on spectral reflectance. (b) Cropland EVI time series sampled from the coastal plain region of Georgia. The uninterrupted green‐up in croplands in spring 2020 is indicative of a reduction in human interventions (e.g., harvesting). Data for 2013–2019 are represented as means (black points) and SDs (gray shaded region)
FIGURE 6Comparison of (a) monthly true color images and (b) estimates of absorption by colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM [aCDOM]) at 355 nm (m−1) in Georgia coastal waters in 2019 and 2020. Time series of (c) Landsat 8 derived a CDOM for the Georgia Coastal Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) domain showing monthly means for the years 2013–2019 compared to 2020. Time series of (d) area‐averaged monthly means (2013–2019) of surface runoff compared to 2020 and (e) monthly means of surface precipitation (2013–2019) compared to 2020 for coastal Georgia. The surface runoff and precipitation data were derived from NASA's MERRA‐2 long‐term global re‐analysis database (MERRA‐2 Model M2TMNXLND v5.12.4). Data for 2013–2019 are represented as means (black points) and SDs (gray shaded region), and 2020 data are represented as red points. Source: Landsat 8‐OLI. The CDOM model (
FIGURE 7(a) Fishing practices at three different Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites including commercial lobster trapping at the Santa Barbara Coastal LTER (SBC, photo by Jono Wilson), local spearfishing from shore at Moorea Coral Reef LTER (MCR, photo by Jean Wencélius), and recreational angling from a boat at North Temperate Lakes LTER (NTL, photo by Noah Lottig). (b) Abundance of selected taxa subjected to fisheries pressure at these three sites. Solid lines connect observed average abundance/biomass per sample per year. Blue dotted lines represent a LOESS smoother to capture the trends in fish abundance. Gray shaded areas show the SE around the mean (dotted line). Gray dashed lines indicate hypothesized directions of response to the anthropause based on anecdotal evidence about human changes in fishing activity. For each site, data presented represent major fisheries at that location: For SBC, data presented are for lobster capture at sites where commercial fishing is permitted (Reed, 2020); for MCR, data reported are in units of fishable biomass compiled for targeted species >15 cm in length (Brooks, 2021); for NTL data reported are from Lake Monona and consist of the top two game species fished in that location, Bluegill and Largemouth Bass, harvested by electrofishing (Magnuson et al., 2019)
FIGURE 8Long Term Ecological Research (LTER), Long Term Agricultural Research (LTAR), and National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) sites depicted along axes of population density and percent of built environment. Note that data describing population and built environment were not available for marine LTER sites (BLE, NGS, and NGA) and that some sites are members of multiple networks. See Table 1 for the LTER site abbreviation key