Recovery Debts Can Be Revealed by Ecosystem Network-Based Approaches
Ecosystems are increasingly disturbed by natural disturbances and human stressors. Understanding how a disturbance can propagate through an entire ecosystem and how induced changes can last after apparent recovery is key to guide management and ecosystem restoration strategies. Monitoring programs and impact assessment studies rely mostly on indicators based only on species relative abundance and biomass, potentially misinforming management efforts. Impacts on ecosystem structure and functioning, and subsequent delivery of ecosystem services, are too often overlooked. Here we use an ecosystem network approach to assess the recovery pathway and potential recovery debts of a coral reef ecosystem, following a pulse disturbance. We show that although species abundance and biomass indicators recovered in a decade after the perturbation, the ecosystem as a whole presented a recovery debt. The ecosystem structure lost complexity (became “food chain like”) and lost about 29% of its overall cycling efficiency and 9% of its transfer efficiency. Although the ecosystem trophic network in the fore reef may have maintained its general functioning, the ecosystem network in the lagoon, not directly exposed to the disturbance, presented a stronger recovery debt. Our results give new insights on how ecosystem network approaches can help identify ecosystem impacts and recovery pathways.
Keywordsecological disturbance coral reef network analysis trophic modelling ecopath
Service d’Observation CORAIL from CRIOBE kindly provided the ecological monitoring data. This work was made possible through financial support from ANR (ANR-14-CE03-0001-01) and Fondation de France (INTHENSE). MC was partially funded by the European Unions Horizon research program grant agreement No 689518 for the MERCES project.
- Anderson MJ. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26(1):32–46.Google Scholar
- Casey JM, Baird AH, Brandl SJ, Hoogenboom MO, Rizzari JR, Frisch AJ, Mirbach CE, Connolly SR. 2016. A test of trophic cascade theory: fish and benthic assemblages across a predator density gradient on coral reefs. Oecologia 183:1–15.Google Scholar
- Christensen V, Walters CJ, Pauly D et al. 2005. Ecopath with ecosim: a user’s guide. Vancouver: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia. p 154.Google Scholar
- Colléter M, Guitton J, Gascuel D. 2013. An introduction to the ecotroph r package: analyzing aquatic ecosystem trophic networks. R J 5(1):98–107.Google Scholar
- Fabre P, Thiault L, Morin E, Dubois M, Bambridge T, Claudet J (2018) Understanding human and marine resource interactions through small-scale sociocultural context: the case of moorea, french polynesia. (In prep)Google Scholar
- Hutchings JA, Reynolds JD. 2004. Marine fish population collapses: consequences for recovery and extinction risk. AIBS Bull 54(4):297–309.Google Scholar
- Insee-ISPF (2007) Recensement de la populationGoogle Scholar
- Insee-ISPF (2012) Recensement de la populationGoogle Scholar
- Piroddi C, Coll M, Liquete C, Macias D, Greer K, Buszowski J, Steenbeek J, Danovaro R, Christensen V. 2017. Historical changes of the mediterranean sea ecosystem: modelling the role and impact of primary productivity and fisheries changes over time. Sci Rep 7:44491.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Wabnitz CC, Balazs G, Beavers S, Bjorndal KA, Bolten AB, Christensen V, Hargrove S, Pauly D. 2010. Ecosystem structure and processes at kaloko honokōhau, focusing on the role of herbivores, including the green sea turtle chelonia mydas, in reef resilience. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 420:27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar