Advertisement

Ecological Research

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 873–885 | Cite as

Filling the gaps in ecological studies of socioecological systems

  • I-Ching Chen
  • Chih-hao Hsieh
  • Michio Kondoh
  • Hsing-Juh Lin
  • Takeshi Miki
  • Masahiro Nakamura
  • Takayuki Ohgushi
  • Jotaro Urabe
  • Takehito Yoshida
Open Access
Special Feature: Perspective paper Filling the gaps

Abstract

Our human-dominant world can be viewed as being built up in two parts, social and ecological systems, each consisting of multi-level organizations that interact in a complex manner. However, there are knowledge gaps among those interactions. In this paper, we focus on studies filling two types of gaps in the socioecological system, some of which are case studies in the East Asia region and others are discussed in a more general context. First, we address the gaps between different levels of organizations in ecological systems, namely, (1) the importance of plant trait plasticity in bridging evolution and ecology, (2) linking primary producer diversity and the dynamics of blue carbon in coastal ecosystems in the Asia–Pacific region, and (3) research direction of climate change biology to fill the gaps across evolution, community, and ecosystem. Also included is (4) the gap between ecological monitoring programs and theories, which also addresses the potential of citizen science. Second, we illustrate the gaps between ecological and social systems through ongoing development of an ecosystem management framework, i.e., ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. Finally, we summarize the benefits of filling the gaps for ecologists and society.

Keywords

Blue carbon Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (ECO-DRR) Citizen science Climate change-induced redistribution Plant plasticity 

Introduction

Our human-dominant world involves two interacting parts, social and ecological systems (Chapin et al. 2009). In the social system, different organizations (citizens, scientists, civil society, business and industry, and governments) interact, resulting in diverse human actions. The ecological system has a hierarchy of diverse entities and processes (e.g., evolution, population, community, and ecosystem) among levels of biological organization. Both systems have various spatial and temporal scales. The two subsystems interact; human actions impact ecological systems, whose responses in turn affect human actions, forming a socioecological feedback system. To maintain sustainability of the earth ecosystem, research from a broad perspective is required in future ecology study (Chapin et al. 2010; Future Earth 2013; Itoh et al. 2017).

To develop a framework based on such a broad perspective, it is necessary to construct a map that highlights the interrelationships among components in the socioecological system. At present, there are many gaps in the map, owing to diversification of science and gaps between society and science. To bring the map closer to completion, it is necessary to point out where the major gaps are located in order that they will be bridged (Agrawal et al. 2007; Enoki et al. 2014; Nakadai 2017).

This paper is the one of the achievements of the 5th Japan-Taiwan Ecological workshop entitled “Filling the Gaps: What’s missing in the genotype–phenotype-population-ecosystem continuum?”, which was held in November 2016 at Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan (see details in Nakamura et al. in this volume). The authors of the present paper formed part of the organizers and invited speakers of this workshop. These authors, with their diverse research backgrounds, selected some of the major gaps in ecological and interdisciplinary studies of socioecological systems. The selected topics include not only general research questions in ecology but also case studies of ecological or socioecological systems in Taiwan and Japan (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Map to link ecological and social systems and filling gaps within/between two systems. In this map, we address different levels of organization, especially for ecological systems. G1–G5 correspond to the section “Filling the Gap 1” through “Filling the Gap 5” in the text. Arrows imply potential links that could fill the gaps further but are not fully discussed in this article. Lead authors of these five sections are T. Ougushi, H-J Lin, I-C Chen, J Urabe, and T Yoshida, respectively

In this paper, we focus on two types of gaps in the study of socioecological systems (Fig. 1). In East Asia, there is substantial biodiversity (Nakano et al. 2012), a strong contribution to the global biogeochemical cycle (Tian et al. 2013), large populations, and frequent natural disturbances (Wu et al. 2005).

The first gaps addressed are those between different organization levels or disciplines that occur across wide spatial scales in ecology, for which we introduce four specific research topics as examples. The first topic addresses a gap between different disciplines, evolutionary and ecological research, which is found in studies of plant–herbivore communities. We discuss the possibility that this gap may be filled by considering plant trait plasticity (Gap 1). The second topic is the knowledge gap between primary producer diversity and the dynamics of “blue carbon” in coastal ecosystems and its impacts on the carbon budget, especially in the Asia–Pacific region (Gap 2). The third topic regards the climate change-induced redistribution of organisms. Recent advances in climate change biology have improved understanding of species and biodiversity redistribution, but there remains a gap to be filled between the redistribution, community reorganization, and renewed ecosystem processes of individual species (Gap 3). Research achievements and knowledge obtained by filling Gaps 2 and 3 will contribute to bridging science–policy interfaces such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and environmental management within local and regional governments. The last topic treats the importance of ecological monitoring programs in advancing ecological theories through the example of the monitoring program following the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake tsunamis. This example also highlights the gap between two of the basic individual units of society, ecologists (scientists) and citizens (Gap 4) and the potential of citizen science.

Second, we address the gaps between ecological and social studies. Specifically, we discuss the ongoing development of a new ecosystem management framework in Japan, ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (ECO-DRR), as a tool to fill the gap between ecological science and traditional engineering-based management on various scales of governments (Gap 5). After illustrating examples of these two types of gaps, we then indicate the benefits and next challenges toward completing the map of coupled socioecological systems.

Filling the gaps

Filling the gap 1: The major role of plant trait plasticity in eco-evo feedbacks between plant and associated herbivore communities

Because there are multiple levels of ecological organization from genes to ecosystems, ecologists have long recognized the importance of integrating across levels. The interplay of evolution and ecology is critical for understanding the evolution of biodiversity, community structure, and ecosystem functions (Schoener 2011). Recent studies of plant–herbivore interactions have highlighted that genetic diversity in plants can be a driver of plant-based communities of herbivores (Whitham et al. 2006), because plant genotypes produce phenotypic variation. However, herbivory can also produce phenotypic variation of plants (i.e., herbivore-induced phenotypic plasticity). Although phenotypic and genetic variation among individual plants is critical for the interplay of ecology and evolution, current research into eco-evolutionary dynamics lacks explicit consideration of phenotypic plasticity as a source of phenotypic variation.

We outline a conceptual framework of eco-evolutionary dynamics of plant–herbivore systems (Fig. 2; Ohgushi 2016). There are two sources of the phenotypic variation in plants, genetic variation and phenotypic plasticity, both of which are greatly influenced by herbivory. Herbivory imposes selection on plant genotypes and induces plastic trait changes. Because induced plant phenotypes have a genetic basis (Gols et al. 2008), plant trait evolution may affect the likelihood and magnitude of phenotypic plasticity, which in turn affects the mode of adaptive evolution (Ghalambor et al. 2015). Increased variation in phenotypic plasticity of plants enhances trait-mediated indirect interactions among herbivores, and thereby links direct/indirect and trophic/non-trophic interactions (Ohgushi 2005). This can alter species composition and diversity of herbivores. Regarding feedback from herbivore communities to plant trait evolution, those communities can increase or decrease herbivory. This is because species and functional diversity of herbivores that induce plant phenotypic plasticity increase or decrease abundances of herbivores, resulting in variable intensities of overall herbivory. Species and function of these inducers can influence the herbivory intensity in different ways. These changes in abundances of herbivore community members determine not only the strength of selection on plant traits but also the expression of induced phenotypes. There are two pathways—direct and indirect—of selection by herbivore communities for plant traits. Direct selection can occur when herbivore community properties select plant traits. In contrast, indirect selection can occur when herbivore communities induce plant phenotypes, and these induced phenotypes feed back to exert selection on herbivore traits, which in turn lead to further selection of plant traits.
Fig. 2

Roles of plant trait plasticity in eco-evo feedbacks between plant and herbivore community (Gap 1). Species composition and diversity of herbivore community determine the type and magnitude of herbivory through functional trait composition, which can directly act as selection pressure on plant constitutive phenotype (direction selection, blue solid line). At the same time, herbivory properties only induce the phenotypic changes of plant traits, which first act as selection pressure on herbivore traits, which in turn feed back as selection pressure on plant traits (indirect selection, blue-dashed line).

Figure is modified from Ohgushi (2016)

Research on plant–herbivore interactions may offer promising prospects to stimulate research on eco-evolutionary dynamics by incorporating induced plant phenotypes. First, herbivore-induced plant phenotypic plasticity is very common and widespread in nature (Karban and Baldwin 1997), and is an essential source of plant phenotypic variation. Second, induced plant phenotypes can strongly influence composition and diversity of a plant-based community of herbivores (Ohgushi et al. 2007). Third, plants support a wide range of herbivores with different guilds, which induce plant phenotypes in different ways.

There are some critical needs to further develop eco-evolutionary perspectives in plant–herbivore communities, as follows. (1) Since community and ecosystem consequences of plant genetic diversity have been well documented recently, it is essential to understand the importance of induced phenotypes of plants relative to genetic diversity, and their interactive effects on herbivore community structure and plant trait evolution (Hanski 2012). (2) Because selection pressure imposed by multiple herbivores may be non-additive, we must explore species and functional diversity and community herbivore composition to understand selective regimes not only for plant traits but also for herbivore host-use traits. (3) We should appreciate the indirect selection of the herbivore community of plant trait evolution via evolution of host-use traits of herbivores, in response to plant phenotypic plasticity. (4) Because the structure of plant-based communities of herbivores varies across spatial scales (Ohgushi and Hambäck 2015), we must understand how the geographic structure of those communities shapes the interplay of ecological and evolutionary dynamics (Thompson 2013). Research into eco-evolutionary dynamics of plant–herbivore communities will undoubtedly enrich understanding of a broad scope of evolution and ecology of plant–herbivore interactions in multiple biological organizations.

Filling the gap 2: identifying key processes of blue carbon

Climate change has resulted from increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, from ~ 277 ppm in 1750, the beginning of the Industrial Era, to 393 in 2012. This will very likely cause future catastrophes (IPCC 2014a). Atmospheric carbon is removed by photosynthesis and stored in vegetation and soil within terrestrial ecosystems, which is so-called “green carbon”. Vegetated coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass meadows, and salt marshes have long been recognized as some of the most productive natural ecosystems. They are considered blue carbon ecosystems, and long-term rates of carbon sequestration in these systems are much greater than green carbon (Mcleod et al. 2011). Therefore, they are thought to provide climate change mitigation benefits in view of their ability to store carbon (C) in their living biomass and in sediments (Nellemann et al. 2009; Tokoro et al. 2014; Miyajima et al. 2017). There is a need to correctly map and document vegetated habitats for their C storage to obtain a better and more reliable picture of the role of these ecosystems in climate change mitigation (Duarte et al. 2013).

C sinks in natural systems are primarily determined by processes through which plants uptake and use atmospheric CO2 (Arrigo 2004). There is a need to understand how these vegetated habitats function as natural C sinks and how they are affected by underlying factors (Laffoley and Grimsditch 2009; Mcleod et al. 2011). Although accumulation rates of organic C in living biomass and sediments of blue C ecosystems have been estimated (Donato et al. 2011; Lavery et al. 2013; Shih et al. 2015), little is known about C sink mechanisms in natural systems (e.g., Lin et al. 2017). Very few studies have attempted to quantify and integrate relevant processes leading to C storage. To obtain a more accurate global storage rate estimate for blue C, reliable estimates are needed of these processes or C budgets across a broad geographic range and of the C storage potential of dominant plant species. Global analysis has demonstrated the accelerating annual loss of seagrasses from a median of 0.9% before 1940 to 7% since 1990, but there have been data deficiencies in the Asia–Pacific region (Waycott et al. 2009). This might undermine certainty in the global estimate of blue carbon emission (Pendleton et al. 2012), owing to habitat destruction of coastal ecosystems. This region has the greatest species richness and the largest area of mangroves and seagrasses in the world (Ricklefs and Latham 1993). Many species grow together in mixed forests or meadows. A multispecies vegetated habitat may exhibit a higher production rate than a monospecific habitat (e.g., Erftemeijer and Stapel 1999). Empirical work on processes in multispecies vegetated habitats is needed to improve understanding of the contribution of vegetated coastal ecosystems to blue C. However, there are numerous gaps in the available literature for the Asia–Pacific region. This region is densely populated and home to ~ 4.3 billion people (60% of the global population). Human activities have greatly modified environments between terrestrial and coastal zones (Regnier et al. 2013). Understanding the impacts of human activities on vegetated habitats that produce blue C will improve C cycle estimation. However, studies of factors controlling C budgets and identification of key processes are still lacking.

A recent study on the seagrass C budget at Dongsha Island in the South China Sea demonstrated that leaf production of multispecies seagrass meadows was greater than that of monospecific beds (Huang et al. 2015). Surprisingly, sediment organic C storage was much less than the global median value (Fourqurean et al. 2012). The lower sediment organic C stock was likely attributable to a higher detrital decomposition rate, because at least 60% of the leaf and belowground detritus was decomposed (Fig. 3). Similarly, a large proportion of mangrove ground litter was decomposed, but only a small proportion was buried in soil (Bouillon et al. 2008). Detrital export was also a key process in their C budgets, whereas the contribution of herbivory was relatively minor (Chiu et al. 2013). Despite this, there are still few field measurements of decomposition, export, or herbivory. Reliable estimates are particularly needed in the Asia–Pacific region to estimate the organic C storage rate. Quantifying the C budgets is important to better understand the global C cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change scenarios (Le Quéré et al. 2013). We suggest that the quantification of C budgets should consider habitat variability and processes across all seasons to ensure unbiased estimation. An understanding of the C budget over time and interannual variations associated with El Niño/La Niña (El Niño–Southern Oscillation) are necessary to understand and quantify climate-C feedbacks.
Fig. 3

Integrated annual budget of seagrass carbon fluxes in lagoon of Donogsha Island (Gap 2). Percentage values represent fraction of total primary production (1482 g C m−2 year−1). Differences in box size do not imply differences in standing C stock.

Figure is recalculated from Huang et al. (2015)

Filling the gap 3: adaptation to global biodiversity redistribution

Anthropogenic climate change has been driving species redistribution at an unprecedented scale and rate since the Last Glacial Maximum (IPCC 2014b). This will reorganize communities, altering ecosystem functions and services, resulting in climate feedbacks (Pecl et al. 2017). It is clear that responses of ecological systems would have tremendous impacts on socioecological systems, such as increasing risks of species extinction (Rohr and Raffel 2010; Urban 2015), infectious disease (Wu et al. 2016), or food insecurity (Bell et al. 2016). Research into biodiversity redistribution has grown rapidly in the past two decades and has emerged as a new field of multidisciplinary study (Bonebrake et al. 2017). Focusing on climate-driven species redistribution, we list herein several knowledge gaps of biological responses under climate change, required shifts of conservation practices, and links between ecological and social systems in need of strengthening.

Biodiversity redistribution is evident in wide taxonomic groups, with terrestrial species estimated to move poleward by 17 km and upward by 11 meters per decade (Chen et al. 2011), and marine species by 72 km per decade (Poloczanska et al. 2013). The global redistribution of species, however, shows great variability and idiosyncratic responses, depending on species’ physiological tolerances, dispersal constraints, and interactions with other species. Moreover, species redistribution can be accelerated by short-term human activities such as harvesting (e.g., Hsieh et al. 2008; Kuo et al. 2016). However, there are huge gaps between observation and mechanistic understanding (Fig. 4). Studies of idiosyncratic range shifts largely focused on intrinsic species traits (Angert et al. 2011; MacLean and Beissinger 2017) and have not yet provided conceptual or theoretical frameworks to fully consider factors involved in the process of range shifts (Estrada et al. 2016). Some aspects at species and community levels may at least be understood in biodiversity redistribution ecology, as discussed below.
Fig. 4

Key effects of global biodiversity redistribution and links to conservation practices (Gap 3). Climate change has resulted in range shifts of many taxonomic groups across the globe. The effect of species redistribution varies with ecological levels and spatial scales. We show some of the knowledge gaps in the framework. We need new paradigms of conservation practices, which strengthen links between ecological and social systems at different levels, to prepare for an overwhelmingly changed earth

Evolutionary dynamics of range shifts

Thermal performance is key to understanding species response and interaction under climate change (Dell et al. 2011). Intraspecific variation of thermal traits may imply the capacity for range shifts. However, the pattern and genetic basis remain to be explored. Measuring genetic structure together with range dynamics provides a wealth of information on evolutionary adaptation (Sexton et al. 2011).

Mechanism of community reassembly

Predicting future species composition remains a major challenge for forecasting biodiversity redistribution. Competitive, trophic, or mutualistic interactions may impede or accelerate species range shifts (Urban et al. 2012; Blois et al. 2013; Alexander et al. 2015). Traditionally, studies of species distribution at large scale and species interaction in local communities use different techniques, theories and datasets (Staniczenko et al. 2017). The lack of predictability for biodiversity redistribution highlights the need to bridge the divide and deepen our mechanistic understanding of community reassembly. Several lines of work have improved dynamic macroecological modeling. A semi-mechanistic approach incorporates key processes of dispersal and community assembly to predict present and future species composition (Mokany and Ferrier 2011; Mokany et al. 2012). Another approach combines Bayesian networks and distribution modeling, which explicitly captures effects of biotic interactions as conditional dependencies among species presence (Staniczenko et al. 2017).

New paradigm of conservation practices

Conventional biodiversity conservation relies predominately on static protected area (PA) systems, targeting specific species or ecosystems. Given that species redistribution will continue in the foreseeable future, conservation strategies must accommodate changing biological communities.

Permeable landscape and seascape

To improve the likelihood of successful dispersal, a PA system should be designed for in situ conservation and consider the surrounding environment to allow permeable landscapes and seascapes. PA systems can be made more climate-resilient by including heterogeneities of microclimate and microhabitat, or areas with slow climate change where climate refugia are more likely to occur (Burrows et al. 2014). In fact, current PA systems may have had important roles in facilitating range expansion and maintaining populations (Thomas et al. 2012; Johnston et al. 2013). However, the failure of PA systems is likely (Scriven et al. 2015). Improving overall connectivity is crucial for long-term persistence of biodiversity. Partnership with private sectors, including land owners and local communities, should be mainstreamed in conservation practices.

Managed relocation

Warming-induced biodiversity redistribution reshuffles biological communities and accelerates the risk of extinction (Urban 2015). Conservation strategy should move toward “managing change” rather than trying to maintain past known communities, given the reality of rapid environmental and biological changes and the goal of prioritizing the preservation of global biodiversity (Thomas 2011). Relocating species to climate-suitable areas outside their native ranges is an option to prevent species extinction. However, this option is often ignored, partly because of the fear of unpredictable consequences of “invasive” species in receiving communities (Ricciardi and Simberloff 2009). In practice, we can ask whether the risk is truly unpredictable and what type of species should be considered. The most severe consequence of new biological interaction may be species extinction. In particular, this involves translocating species to a different biogeographic region or very isolated environment, such as oceanic islands. These are not cases for managed relocation, usually because climate-suitable areas in the region are considered. Moreover, translocation should give priority to highly vulnerable species with limited chance to sustain in situ. Essentially, threatened species that could thrive elsewhere but are currently hindered by weak mobility or inhospitable surroundings may be suitable targets (Thomas 2011).

Strengthen links between ecological and social systems

The pervasive effects of species on the move transcend systems between natural systems and human societies. However, the necessary links and communication between social and ecological systems are generally weak, making conservation practice inefficient (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). Understanding the pattern and process of biodiversity redistribution not only prevents species extinction but strengthens resource management.

Changing distributions of pollinators, pests, or pathogens pose great challenges to agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture (Bell et al. 2016). New paradigms of dynamic management and monitoring schemes will be critical, such as the following: (1) dynamic ocean management (DOM). Management responses adapt to the shifting nature of the ocean and its users. Implementation requires technological and policy capacities and enables wise use and proactive management (Hobday et al. 2014; Dunn et al. 2016). (2) Early warning systems supported by citizen science. The collection of spatially and temporally explicit data of species and environmental change facilitates the aforementioned research and modeling, which supports science-based decision-making. Citizen science projects led by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/page.aspx?pid=1664) and Range Extension Database and Mapping Project (http://www.redmap.org.au/) led by the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies are good examples of citizen involvement (see also “Filling the gap 4: importance of ecological theory and biological monitoring”). These projects focus on birds and marine taxa, respectively, detecting species on the move and community reassembly at large spatial and temporal scales.

The cross-cutting nature of biodiversity redistribution requires collaboration among experts in ecology and climate, data, and the social sciences. Monitoring schemes bridge science, private and governmental sectors, further improving the understanding and management of socioecological systems. Adapting to altered socioecological systems requires governance that prepare for overwhelmingly volatile conditions.

Filling the gap 4: importance of ecological theory and biological monitoring in community organization

Mechanisms determining species assembly and resultant community structure are long-standing subjects in ecology. To understand community organization in diverse systems, therefore, a number of ecological theories have been proposed. These theories are roughly categorized into deterministic and stochastic views.

The deterministic view focuses on environments as direct determinants of community structure, because these can directly affect physiological processes of species or, indirectly, biological interactions such as competition and predation (e.g., Weng et al. 2017). Some community ecology theories, e.g., “Paradox of plankton” (Hutchinson 1961), theories of keystone species (Paine 1969), and trophic cascade (Carpenter and Kitchell 1996), rely on such deterministic forces. Even the alternative stable state theory (Scheffer et al. 1993) relies on a deterministic view, because the stability landscape of equilibria changes with environmental conditions. Ultimately, this view implies that abiotic environmental factors and biological interactions act as filters that shift or select organisms as members of a local community. In other words, these filters characterize niche space in a local community, and so the deterministic view implicitly assumes that the community is structured by niche limitation.

The stochastic view focuses on dispersal abilities or probabilities of immigration success of species more than on environments and biological interactions, and address the unequal ability and probability of organisms to access a local habitat (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Diversity of life histories, e.g., small-size vs. large-size propagules and planktonic propagules drifting over long periods vs. early settlers, indicates that dispersal abilities and therefore probabilities of immigration success to new habitats vary between organisms (Lockwood et al. 2005). It is also likely that the immigration success of an organism depends on the meta-population structure, i.e., distance and size of a source population. If these factors are dominant, the local community would be shaped by the dispersal probabilities of organisms. The theory of island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson 1967), lottery competition (Chesson and Warner 1981), and neutral theory (Hubbell 2001) are in line with the stochastic view. Implicitly, that view implies that the community is structured by dispersal limitation.

In community assembly, however, deterministic and stochastic views are probably not exclusive to each other. Rather, both niche and dispersal limitations operate subsequently to shape community structure. To be a member of a local community, each species must pass through a number of filters, some of which are deterministic but others stochastic (Fig. 5). However, our understanding of the relative importance of deterministic (or niche limitation) and stochastic (or dispersal limitation) forces is still limited, probably because of few opportunities to experimentally examine meta-communities at large ecosystem scale.
Fig. 5

Diagram of the community organization (Gap 4). Species in a local community are selected through various deterministic filters within local environments and stochastic filters between local communities and meta-communities. Species in meta-communities are determined by species in regional pool that pass through geographic filters

One such opportunity is a powerful natural disturbance that has ecological impacts at regional or multi-ecosystem scales. For example, the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 and resulting large tsunamis struck the Pacific coast of eastern Japan and affected coastal ecosystems at regional scale (Shimada 2016). In some tidal communities, a number of benthic animal species dramatically decreased immediately after the tsunamis (Urabe et al. 2013). In tidal flats where environmental conditions did not change substantially, after an initial increase of species richness over 2 years, species richness and composition returned to levels prior to the tsunamis in the fourth year. These findings imply that niche limitation was important in structuring communities in the later stage (by 2014) through environmental filtering and/or biological interactions. In fact, in 4 years, species compositions roughly returned to those previously found in certain tidal flats before the tsunami (Nishita et al. 2016). In contrast, in tidal flats where environmental conditions changed greatly because of the tsunamis, communities also changed and did not show a recovery to the original state for at least 4 years after the tsunamis (Kanaya et al. 2012, 2015). These results suggest that the tidal communities are assembled and shaped mainly by niche limitation. However, in any tidal flat, community structures examined in these studies never reached the original ones before the tsunamis. Thus, it is premature to conclude that niche limitation plays a more pivotal role than dispersal limitation (Nishita et al. 2016). Clearly, we need more long-term observation of the communities.

Climate models have forecast that owing to putative climate change, there will be more frequent large or extreme natural disturbances such as typhoons, floods, and drought (e.g., Easterling et al. 2000). Ironically, such natural disturbances may provide an opportunity to study how communities are assembled and shaped. To take full advantage of this opportunity, we must develop ecological theories considering both deterministic and stochastic views that can be feasibly used to analyze empirical data (e.g., Chang et al. 2017). More importantly, we need community data before the disturbance. Otherwise, we can do nothing, even if we have sophisticated ecological theories at our disposal.

One of the promising approaches to long-term observation programs would be related to citizen science (Urabe et al. 2013; Kobori et al. 2016; Nishita et al. 2016). After the tsunamis, we implemented a monitoring program for benthic communities at Sendai Bay every year, with over 500 citizen volunteers over 5 years (Ito 2017). The program provided benefits to citizens (e.g., playing with mud and animals (refreshment), learning the ecology and ecosystems of animals, the environment, and biodiversity literacy, and conservation consensus) and ecologists (e.g., outreach of ecological importance, sharing with society, feedback to our science, reconsideration of conservation needs, and donations from private sectors) (Ito 2017). It therefore functioned to bridge a gap between citizens and ecologists and solved a human-power shortage in obtaining high-quality large datasets (Fig. 1). These data will certainly be treasures for future ecologists to understand community organization under climate change, and provide a basis for science-based ecosystem management.

Filling the gap 5: adaptation to natural disasters: how does the interaction of disturbance and land use influence biodiversity and disaster risks?

In addition to global-scale impacts, future climate change is also predicted for Japan, including warming and increased heavy rain (MOE Japan 2014). The impacts of climate change extend to various natural and human systems worldwide (IPCC 2014b). Among these, natural disasters have been increasing, partly because of contemporary climate change (IPCC 2014b; Munich Re 2015). Adaptation to disaster risk is important for the sustainability of both local and global human societies. Coincident with climate change, many local communities in Japan are experiencing shrinking populations, leading to the abandonment of farmlands, houses, and other intensive land use (National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (IPSS) 2014; MLIT Japan 2015). Also, existing infrastructures, including those for disaster prevention, have been aging, and the predicted expenditure for renewal of those infrastructures in the next several decades continues to increase (MLIT 2012).

Recently, increasing attention has been paid to ecosystem-based adaptation to risks of climate change, with a focus on lower economic cost and multiple functions of ecosystem services (e.g., CBD 2015; UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015; MOE Japan 2016). However, in local communities, this adaptation can sometimes be rediscovered in the traditional wisdom of local people (e.g., Fukamachi et al. 2009; MOE Japan 2016). Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) takes advantage of both multiple ecosystem services and disaster risk reduction by, for example, reducing the exposure of human systems through land-use management (SCJ 2014; The Royal Society 2014) (Fig. 6). Population decline provides ample opportunity for implementing Eco-DRR in Japan. However, quantitative analysis of the multi-functionality of Eco-DRR is still in its infancy (SCJ 2014; The Royal Society 2014), so detailed technical comparison with conventional hard-engineering countermeasures is not yet feasible. This hampers the social implementation of Eco-DRR.
Fig. 6

Risk of natural disasters and Eco-DRR (Gap 5). Risk of natural disasters consists of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) takes advantage of both multiple ecosystem services and disaster risk reduction by managing land use of towns and cities, as exemplified here

To understand how the ecosystem-based approach can simultaneously reduce disaster risks and restore/conserve biodiversity, we have been studying how the interaction of natural disturbances and land use influences disaster risks and biodiversity in the Lake Mikata watershed of Fukui Prefecture. This area has flooding every 5 years on average, and some new countermeasures are being planned. Our preliminary results suggest that Eco-DRR can produce win–win situation for biodiversity conservation and disaster risk reduction. Our species distribution modeling with both land use and flood risk (i.e., flood disturbance of organisms) as explanatory variables showed that some organisms should benefit from the land-use pattern, such that their habitat is selectively conserved in the flood-prone area, thereby avoiding the flood risk to human society. We are currently examining what the Eco-DRR potentially provides in terms of multiple ecosystem services, including provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. By integrating their results, we wish to propose how the Eco-DRR can be compared to the conventional hard-engineering countermeasures in terms of reducing the risk of natural disasters and multi-functionality of ecosystem services.

What are the benefits of filling the gaps?

Here, we summarize how filling the gaps in socioecological systems is beneficial for ecological science and society (e.g., citizens and governments). The examples above illustrate two different types of gaps in our understanding of socioecological systems (Fig. 1). Ecology has developed through repeated cycles of diversification into sub-fields and their reintegration. In the last two decades, the integration of subdivided fields in ecology has facilitated great progress in ecology. Actually, such approaches link different levels of ecological organizations, from community to ecosystem (e.g., Loreau et al. 2001; Ehrenfeld et al. 2005; Gap 2) and evolution to community (e.g., Matthews et al. 2014; Gap 1). Eco-evolutionary approaches will also increase understanding of complex social behaviors (Harrington and Sanchez 2014). An urgent need is to scale up climate-change biology at organism and species levels to community and ecosystem levels (Gap 3).

Filling the gaps between ecological organization and processes is crucial for ecologists to provide citizens with an overall picture of ecological sciences. Ecologists cannot convince citizens and other scientists that ecology is often more valuable than the natural history of animals, plants, and microbes without sharing the full picture of the ecological sciences. Highlighting links and feedbacks between multiple ecological processes enables citizens to better understand that ecological conservation of ecological processes (e.g., the potential of evolution and pollination service) and ecosystem processes (e.g., primary production and nutrient cycling) within a community in a certain local or regional area, and global biodiversity conservation, are much more important than separately protecting individuals of endangered species. In other words, filling the gaps between different ecological organizations not only advances ecological science but also improves communication between ecologists and citizens. Similarly, citizen science is not a unidirectional information flow from ecologists to citizens; data obtained by citizens will furnish precious materials for cutting-edge research to advance ecological theories (Gap 4). Covering multiple spatial scales in each ecological organization is also a promising approach to advance ecology (Gap 2 and Gap 4) and enhance the connection between ecological and social systems (Gap 5). Filling the gaps between multiple spatial scales will make it easier and more effective for local and regional governments (from city and county to nation) to design effective ecosystem management strategies dependent on spatial scale.

Next challenges

We now have an updated map that better highlights interrelationships among components within the socioecological system (Fig. 1), but this map remains incomplete. The following are a few examples of further steps to improve our map. Gaps between the proposed gaps should be also filled. For example, eco-evo feedback concepts and phenotypic plasticity in species traits (Gap 1) should be incorporated into the framework of the global redistribution of biodiversity (Gap 3). In addition to proposing brand new ideas and accumulating more empirical data, what we need to advance ecology includes sharing of existing theories and concepts from different scientific fields. This often boosts our understanding [e.g., unified theory of biodiversity (Hubbell 2001), originally from the neutral theory of molecular evolution (Kimura 1968); evolutionary game theory (Smith 1974) that was developed from game theory in mathematics and economics (Nash 1950)]. We need positive attitudes to fill the gaps between scientists in diverse fields of academics (e.g., Liu et al. 2017). Sharing data is a growing trend in ecological sciences and other fields. The data paper section has been published in Ecology, BMC Ecology, PLOS ONE, and Ecological Research (e.g., Iwayama et al. 2017). There are many open ecological databases [FishBase http://www.fishbase.org/search.php; GPDD (Inchausti and Halley 2001); TRY (Kattge et al. 2011)] and genomic information [e.g., KEGG (Kanehisa and Goto 2000), MBGD (Uchiyama et al. 2010), and SILBA (Quast et al. 2013)]. The International Long-Term Ecological Research East Asia–Pacific Regional network has accumulated valuable datasets (Kim et al. unpublished). The next step may include developing a framework to share research ideas and hypotheses before completion of research projects (e.g., Royal Society Open Science). Such new frameworks for sharing ideas will accelerate the filling of gaps between ecologists. Eventually, via gap-filling, the application of new ecological sciences arising from these continuous challenges to local and regional societies in East Asia will improve environmental management at various government scales under human-driven environmental changes (e.g., Laplace et al. 2017; Lin et al. 2017).

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by CREST JST, JSPS KAKENHI (No. 251011 to Ecological Research, Nos. 15K14610 and 16H04846 to Michio Kondoh, and No. B-25291102 to Takayuki Ohgushi), the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (4-1505) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan and Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN), Japan (to Takehito Yoshida), Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST 104-2311-B-006-006-MY3) (to I-Ching Chen), and Marine National Park Headquarters, Taiwan under Grant 98415 and Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST104-2621-M-005-002-MY2) (to Hsing-Juh Lin).

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Ackerly DD, Adler F, Arnold AE, Cáceres C, Doak DF, Post E, Hudson PJ, Maron J, Mooney KA, Power M, Schemske D, Stachowicz J, Strauss S, Turner MG, Werner E (2007) Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Front Ecol Environ 5:145–152. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[145:FKGIPA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander JM, Diez JM, Levine JM (2015) Novel competitors shape species/responses to climate change. Nature 525:515–518. doi: 10.1038/nature14952 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angert AL, Crozier LG, Rissler LJ, Gilman SE, Tewksbury JJ, Chunco AJ (2011) Do species’ traits predict recent shifts at expanding range edges? Ecol Lett 14:677–689. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01620.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrigo KR (2004) Marine microorganisms and global nutrient cycles. Nature 437:349–355. doi: 10.1038/nature04159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell J, Cheung W, De Silva S, Gasalla M, Frusher S, Hobday A, Lam V, Lehodey P, Pecl G, Samoilys M, Senina I (2016) Impacts and effects of ocean warming on the contributions of fisheries and aquaculture to food security. In: Laffoley D, Baxter JM (eds) explaining ocean warming: causes, scale, effects and consequences. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, pp 409–437Google Scholar
  6. Blois JL, Zarnetske PL, Fitzpatrick MC, Finnegan S (2013) Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions. Science 341:499–504. doi: 10.1126/science.1237184 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonebrake TC, Brown CJ, Bell JD, Blanchard JL, Chauvenet A, Champion C, Chen IC, Clark TD, Colwell RK, Danielsen F, Dell AI, Donelson JM, Evengård B, Ferrier S, Frusher S, Garcia RA, Griffis RB, Hobday AJ, Jarzyna MA, Lee E, Lenoir J, Linnetved H, Martin VY, McCormack PC, McDonald J, McDonald-Madden E, Mitchell N, Mustonen T, Pandolfi JM, Pettorelli N, Possingham H, Pulsifer P, Reynolds M, Scheffers BR, Sorte CJB, Strugnell JM, Tuanmu M-N, Twiname S, Vergés A, Villanueva C, Wapstra E, Wernberg T, Pecl GT (2017) Managing consequences of climate-driven species redistribution requires integration of ecology, conservation and social science. Biol Rev. doi: 10.1111/brv.12344 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouillon S, Borges AV, Castaneda-Moya E, Diele K, Dittmar T, Duke NC, Kristensen E, Lee SY, Marchand C, Middelburg JJ, Rivera-Monroy VH, Smith TJ, Twilley RR (2008) Mangrove production and carbon sinks: a revision of global budget estimates. Glob Biogeochem Cy 22(2):GB2013. doi: 10.1029/2007GB003052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrows MT, Schoeman DS, Richardson AJ, Molinos JG, Hoffmann A, Buckley LB, Moore PJ, Brown CJ, Bruno JF, Duarte CM, Halpern BS, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Kappel CV, Kiessling W, O’Connor MI, Pandolfi JM, Parmesan C, Sydeman WJ, Ferrier S, Williams KJ, Poloczanska ES (2014) Geographical limits to species-range shifts are suggested by climate velocity. Nature 507:492–495. doi: 10.1038/nature12976 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1996) The trophic cascade in lakes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang CW, Ushio M, Hsieh C (2017) Empirical dynamic modeling for beginners. Ecol Res 32:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1469-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C, Chapin MC (eds) (2009) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapin FS III et al (2010) Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol Evol 25:241–249. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen I-C, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024–1026. doi: 10.1126/science.1206432 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chesson PL, Warner RR (1981) Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. Am Nat 117:923–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiu SH, Huang YH, Lin HJ (2013) Carbon budget of leaves of the tropical intertidal seagrass Thalassia hemprichii. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 125:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2013.03.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2015) Governments should consider the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as strategy for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. https://www.cbd.int/doc/press/2015/pr-2015-10-21-eco-en.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  18. Dell AI, Pawar S, Savage VM (2011) Systematic variation in the temperature dependence of physiological and ecological traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:10591–10596. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015178108 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kurnianto S, Stidham M, Kanninen M (2011) Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat Geosci 4:293–297. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duarte CM, Losada IJ, Hendriks IE, Mazarrasa I, Marbà N (2013) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 3:961–968. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunn DC, Maxwell SM, Boustany AM, Halpin PN (2016) Dynamic ocean management increases the efficiency and efficacy of fisheries management. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:668–673. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513626113 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Easterling DR, Meehl GA, Parmesan C, Changson SA, Karl TR, Mearns LO (2000) Climate extremes: observation, modeling and impacts. Science 289:2068–2074. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5487.2068 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ehrenfeld JG, Ravit B, Elgersma K (2005) Feedback in the plant–soil system. Annu Rev Env Resour 30:75–115. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Enoki T, Nakashizuka T, Nakano S, Miki T, Lin Y-P, Nakaoka M, Mizumachi E, Shibata H (2014) Progress in the 21st century: a roadmap for the Ecological Society of Japan. Ecol Res 29:357–368. doi: 10.1007/s11284-014-1140-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Erftemeijer PA, Stapel J (1999) Primary production of deep-water Halophila ovalis meadows. Aquat Bot 65:71–82. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00032-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Estrada A, Morales-Castilla I, Caplat P, Early R (2016) Usefulness of species traits in predicting range shifts. Trends Ecol Evol 31:190–203. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fourqurean JW, Duarte CM, Kennedy H, Marba N, Holmer M, Mateo MA, Apostolaki E, Kendrick GA, Kurause-Jensen D, McGlathery KJ, Serrano O (2012) Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nat Geosci 5:505–509. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fukamachi K, Oku H, Miyoshi I (2009) Changes of land use and vegetation in Satoyama landscape of Tango Peninsula, Kyoto, Japan: where are they bound for? In: Saratsi E, Burgi M, Johann E, Kirby K, Moreno D, Watkins C (eds) Woodland cultures in time and space: tales from the past, messages for the future. Embryo Publications, Aigáleo, pp 276–283Google Scholar
  29. Future Earth (2013) Future earth initial design: report of the transition team. International Council for Science (ICSU), ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Ghalambor CK, Hoke KL, Ruell EW, Fischer EK, Reznick DN, Hughes KA (2015) Non-adaptive plasticity potentiates rapid adaptive evolution of gene expression in nature. Nature 525:372–375. doi: 10.1038/nature15256 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gols R, Wagenaar R, Bukovinszky T, van Dam NM, Dicke M, Bullock JM, Harvey JA (2008) Genetic variation in defense chemistry in wild cabbages affects herbivores and their endoparasitoids. Ecology 89:1616–1626. doi: 10.1890/07-0873.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanski I (2012) Eco-evolutionary dynamics in a changing world. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1249:1–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrington KI, Sanchez A (2014) Eco-evolutionary dynamics of complex social strategies in microbial communities. Commun Integr Biol 7:e28230. doi: 10.4161/cib.28230 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142:14–32. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobday AJ, Maxwell SM, Forgie J, McDonald J (2014) Dynamic ocean management: integrating scientific and technological capacity with law, policy and management. Stan Envtl L J 33:125–165Google Scholar
  36. Hsieh CH, Reiss SC, Hewitt RP, Sugihara G (2008) Spatial analysis shows fishing enhances the climatic sensitivity of marine fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:947–961. doi: 10.1139/F08-017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huang YH, Hsiao SC, Lee CL, Chung CY, Lin HJ (2015) Carbon budgets of multispecies seagrass beds at Dongsha Island in the South China Sea. Mar Environ Res 106:92–102. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.03.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of species abundance and diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  39. Hutchinson GE (1961) The paradox of the plankton. Am Nat 95:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Inchausti P, Halley J (2001) Investigating long-term ecological variability using the global population dynamics database. Science 293:655–657. doi: 10.1126/science.293.5530.655 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. IPCC (2014a) Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. IPCC (2014b) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Core writing team. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  43. Ito Y (2017) Post-tsunami monitoring project of Earth watch Japan. Green Power 3:13Google Scholar
  44. Itoh I, Kojima H, Ho PC et al (2017) Integrating isotopic, microbial, and modeling approaches to understand methane dynamics in a frequently disturbed deep reservoir in Taiwan. Ecol Res 32:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1502-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Iwayama A, Ogura H, Hirama Y et al (2017) Phytoplankton species abundance in Lake Inba (Japan) from 1986 to 2016. Ecol Res 32:1. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1482-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnston A, Ausden M, Dodd AM, Bradbury RB, Chamberlain DE, Jiguet F, Thomas CD, Cook ASCP, Newson SE, Ockendon N, Rehfisch MM, Roos S, Thaxter CB, Brown A, Crick HQP, Douse A, McCall RA, Pontier H, Stroud DA, Cadiou B, Crowe O, Deceuninck B, Hornman M, Pearce-Higgins JW (2013) Observed and predicted effects of climate change on species abundance in protected areas. Nat Clim Change 3:1055–1061. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kanaya G, Suzuki T, Maki H, Nakamura Y, Miyajima Y, Kikuchi E (2012) Effects of the 2011 tsunami on the topography, vegetation, and macrobenthic fauna in Gamo Lagoon, Japan. Jpn J Benthol 67:20–32. doi: 10.5179/benthos.67.20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kanaya G, Suzuki T, Kikuchi E (2015) Impacts of the 2011 tsunami on sediment characteristics and macrozoobenthic assemblages in a shallow eutrophic lagoon, Sendai Bay, Japan. PLoS One 10:e0135125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135125 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kanehisa M, Goto S (2000) KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 28:27–30PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kattge J et al (2011) TRY—a global database of plant traits. Glob Chang Biol 17:2905–2935. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02451.x PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kimura M (1968) Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624–626. doi: 10.1038/217624a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kobori H, Dickinson JL, Washitani I, Sakurai R, Tatsuya A, Komatsu N, Kitamura W, Takagawa S, Koyama K, Ogawara T, Miller-Rushing AJ (2016) Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education and conservation. Ecol Res 31:1–19. doi: 10.1007/s11284-015-1314-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuo TC, Mandal S, Yamauchi A, Hsieh CH (2016) Life history traits and exploitation affect the spatial mean–variance relationship in fish abundance. Ecology 97:1251–1259. doi: 10.1890/15-1270.1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Laffoley D, Grimsditch G (eds) (2009) The management of natural coastal carbon sinks. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  56. Laplace S, Komatsu H, Tseng H, Kume T (2017) Difference between the transpiration rates of Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) and Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) forests in a subtropical climate in Taiwan. Ecol Res 32. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1512-x
  57. Lavery PS, Mateo M-A, Serrano O, Rozaimi M (2013) Variability in the carbon storage of seagrass habitats and its implications for global estimates of blue carbon ecosystem service. PLoS One 8(9):e73748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073748 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Le Quéré C, Peters GP, Andres RJ, Andrew RM, Boden T, Ciais P et al (2013) Global carbon budget 2013. Earth Syst Sci Data Discuss 6:689–760. doi: 10.5194/essdd-6-689-2013
  59. Lin MY, Hsieh IF, Lin PH et al (2017) Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) forests as a significant carbon sink? A case study based on 4-year measurements in central Taiwan. Ecol Res 32:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1497-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Liu W-C, Lai S-M, Chen H-W (2017) A topological similarity-based bootstrapping method for inferring food web parameters. Ecol Res 32:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1519-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Shmid B, Tilman D, Wardle (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804–808. doi: 10.1126/science.1064088 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Monographs in population biology I. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  64. MacLean SA, Beissinger SR (2017) Species’ traits as predictors of range shifts under contemporary climate change: a review and meta-analysis. Glob Change Biol. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13736 Google Scholar
  65. Matthews B, Meester LD, Jones CG, Ibelings BW, Bouma TJ, Nuutinen V, van de Koppel J, Obling-Smee J (2014) Under niche construction: an operational bridge between ecology, evolution, and ecosystem sciences. Ecol Mong 84:245–263. doi: 10.1890/13-0953.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WS, Silliman BR (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9:552–560. doi: 10.1890/110004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) Japan (2012) White paper on land, infrastructure, transport and tourism in Japan.http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/white-paper/2012.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  68. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) Japan (2015) The 5th national land use plan (national plan). http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001100246.pdf (in Japanese). Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  69. Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Japan (2014) Prediction of climate change for evaluating the impacts of climate change in Japan. http://www.env.go.jp/press/18230.html (in Japanese). Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  70. Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Japan (2016) Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction in Japan. http://www.env.go.jp/nature/biodic/eco-drr/pamph04.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  71. Miyajima T, Hori M, Hamaguchi M, Shimabukuro H, Yoshida G (2017) Geophysical constraints for organic carbon sequestration capacity of Zostera marina seagrass meadows and surrounding habitats. Limnol Oceanogr 62:954–972. doi: 10.1002/lno.10478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mokany K, Ferrier S (2011) Predicting impacts of climate change on biodiversity: a role for semi-mechanistic community-level modelling. Divers Distrib 17:374–380. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00735.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mokany K, Harwood TD, Williams KJ, Ferrier S (2012) Dynamic macroecology and the future for biodiversity. Glob Chang Biol 18:3149–3159. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02760.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nakadai R (2017) Species diversity of herbivorous insects: a brief review to bridge the gap between theories focusing on the generation and maintenance of diversity. Ecol Res 32:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1500-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nakano S, Yahara T, Nakashizuka T (2012) The biodiversity observation network in the Asia-Pacific region: toward further development of monitoring. Springer, JapanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci 36:49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (IPSS) (2014) Social security in Japan (2014 edition). http://www.ipss.go.jp/s-info/e/ssj2014/PDF/ssj2014.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  78. Nellemann C, Corcoran E, Duarte CM, Valdés L, De Young C, Fonseca L, Grimsditch G (2009) Blue carbon. A rapid response assessment vol. 80. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal)Google Scholar
  79. Nishita T, Makino W, Suzuki T, Urabe J (2016) Ecological responses of macrobenthic communities in tidal flats to disturbances by the Great East Japan earthquake. In: Urabe J, Nakashizuka T (eds) Ecological impacts of tsunamis on coastal ecosystems: lessons from the Great East Japan earthquake. Springer, Japan, pp 151–164Google Scholar
  80. Ohgushi T (2005) Indirect interaction webs: herbivore-induced effects through trait change in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:81–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ohgushi T (2016) Eco-evolutionary dynamics of plant-herbivore communities: incorporating plant phenotypic plasticity. Curr Opin Insect Sci 14:40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2016.01.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ohgushi T, Hambäck PA (2015) Toward a spatial perspective of plant-based indirect interaction webs: scaling up trait-mediated indirect interactions. Persp Plant Ecol Evol Syst 17:500–509. doi: 10.1016/jppees.2015.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ohgushi T, Craig TP, Price PW (2007) Ecological communities: plant mediation in indirect interaction webs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat 103:91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD, Blanchard J, Bonebrake TC, Chen I-C, Clark TD, Colwell RK, Danielsen F, Evengård B, Falconi L, Ferrier S, Frusher S, Garcia RA, Griffis RB, Hobday AJ, Janion-Scheepers C, Jarzyna MA, Jennings S, Lenoir J, Linnetved HI, Martin VY, McCormack PC, McDonald J, Mitchell NJ, Mustonen T, Pandolfi JM, Pettorelli N, Popova E, Robinson SA, Scheffers BR, Shaw JD, Sorte CJB, Strugnell JM, Sunday JM, Tuanmu M-N, Vergés A, Villanueva C, Wernberg T, Wapstra E, Williams SE (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.aai9214 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, Crooks S, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, Craft C, Fourqurean JW, Kauffman JB, Marba N, Magonigal P, Pidgeon E, Herr D, Gordon D, Baldera A (2012) Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 7:e43542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043542 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Poloczanska ES, Brown CJ, Sydeman WJ, Kiessling W, Schoeman DS, Moore PJ, Brander K, Bruno JF, Buckley LB, Burrows MT, Duarte CM, Halpern BS, Holding J, Kappel CV, O’Connor MI, Pandolfi JM, Parmesan C, Schwing F, Thompson SA, Richardson AJ (2013) Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat Clim Change 3:919–925. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glöckner FO (2013) The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D590–D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Regnier P, Friedlingstein P, Ciais P, Mackenzie FT, Gruber N, Janssens IA, Laruelle GG, Lauerwald R, Luyssaert S, Andersson AJ, Arndt S, Arnosti C, Borges AV, Dale AW et al (2013) Anthropogenic perturbation of the carbon fluxes from land to ocean. Nat Geosci 6:597–607. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ricciardi A, Simberloff D (2009) Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends Ecol Evol 24:248–253. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.12.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ricklefs RE, Latham RE (1993) Global patterns of diversity in mangrove floras. In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities. Historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 215–229Google Scholar
  92. Rohr JR, Raffel TR (2010) Linking global climate and temperature variability to widespread amphibian declines putatively caused by disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:8269–8274PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Royal Society (2014) Resilience to extreme weather. The royal society science policy centre report 02/14. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/resilience-climate-change/resilience-full-report.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  94. Scheffer M, Hosper SH, Meijer ML, Moss B, Jeppesen E (1993) Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends Ecol Evol 8:275–279. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(93)90254-M PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schoener TW (2011) The newest synthesis: understanding the interplay of evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Science 331:426–429. doi: 10.1126/science.1193954 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Science Council of Japan (SCJ) (2014) Recommendation of the use of ecosystem infrastructure for the reconstruction from the disaster and the national resilience in Japan. http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-22-t199-2.pdf (in Japanese). Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  97. Scriven SA, Hodgson JA, McClean CJ, Hill JK (2015) Protected areas in Borneo may fail to conserve tropical forest biodiversity under climate change. Biol Conserv 184:414–423. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sexton JP, Strauss SY, Rice KJ (2011) Gene flow increases fitness at the warm edge of a species’ range. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:11704–11709. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100404108 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Shih SS, Hsieh HL, Chen PH, Chen CP, Lin HJ (2015) Tradeoffs between reducing flood risks and storing carbon stocks in mangroves. Ocean Coast Manag 105:116–126. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Shimada N (2016) Outline of the Great East Japan earthquake. In: Urabe J, Nakashizuka T (eds) Ecological impacts of tsunamis on coastal ecosystems: lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake. Springer, Japan, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  101. Smith JM (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(74)90110-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Staniczenko PPA, Sivasubramaniam P, Suttle KB, Pearson RG (2017) Linking macroecology and community ecology: refining predictions of species distributions using biotic interaction networks. Ecol Let 20:693–707. doi: 10.1111/ele.12770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Thomas CD (2011) Translocation of species, climate change, and the end of trying to recreate past ecological communities. Trends Ecol Evol 26:216–221. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.02.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thomas CD, Gillingham PK, Bradbury RB, Roy DB, Anderson BJ, Baxter JM, Bourn NAD, Crick HQP, Findon RA, Fox R, Hodgson JA, Holt AR, Morecroft MD, O’Hanlon NJ, Oliver TH, Pearce-Higgins JW, Procter DA, Thomas JA, Walker KJ, Walmsley CA, Wilson RJ, Hill JK (2012) Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:14063–14068. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210251109 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Thompson JN (2013) Relentless evolution. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tian H, Melillo JM, Kicklighter DW, Pan S, Liu J, McGuire D, Moore B III (2013) Regional carbon dynamics in monsoon Asia and its implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob Planet Change 37:201–217. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8181(02)00205-9 Google Scholar
  107. Tokoro T, Hosokawa S, Miyoshi E, Kazufumi T, Watanabe K, Montani S, Kayanne H, Kuwae T (2014) Net uptake of atmospheric CO2 by coastal submerged aquatic vegetation. Glob Chang Biol 20:1873–1884. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12543 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Uchiyama I, Higuchi T, Kawai M (2010) MBGD update 2010: toward a comprehensive resource for exploring microbial genome diversity. Nucleic Acids Res 38:D361–D365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015) Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
  110. Urabe J, Suzuki T, Nishita T, Makino W (2013) Immediate ecological impacts of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake tsunami on intertidal flat communities. PLoS One 8:e62779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062779 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Urban MC (2015) Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348:571–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Urban MC, Tewksbury JJ, Sheldon KS (2012) On a collision course: competition and dispersal differences create no-analogue communities and cause extinctions during climate change. Proc Royal Soci B 279:2072–2080. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik S, Calladine A, Fourqurean JW, Heck KL Jr, Hughes AR, Kendrick GA, Kenworthy WJ, Short FT, Williams SL (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:12377–12381. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905620106 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Weng CY, Yang KC, Hsieh CF et al (2017) Local neighborhood communities in the understory play a critical role by affecting regeneration niches and subsequent community assembly in a montane cloud forest. Ecol Res 32:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1475-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Whitham TG, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Shuster SM, Bangert RK, LeRoy CJ, Lonsdorf EV, Allan GJ, DiFazio SP, Potts BM, Fischer DG, Gehring CA, Lindroth RL, Marks JC, Hart SC, Wimp GM, Wooley SC (2006) A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nature Rev Genet 7:510–523. doi: 10.1038/nrg1877 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wu L, Wang B, Geng S (2005) Growing typhoon influence on east Asia. Geophys Res Lett 32:L18703. doi: 10.1029/2005GL022937 Google Scholar
  117. Wu X, Lu Y, Zhou S, Chen L, Xu B (2016) Impact of climate change on human infectious diseases: empirical evidence and human adaptation. Environ Int 86:14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.09.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of OceanographyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Life Science, Institute of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Research Center for Environmental Changes, Academia SinicaNankangTaiwan
  5. 5.National Center for Theoretical SciencesTaipeiTaiwan
  6. 6.Department of Environmental Solution Technology, Faculty of Science and TechnologyRyukoku UniversityOtsuJapan
  7. 7.Department of Life SciencesNational Chung Hsing UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  8. 8.Northern Forestry Research and Development Office, Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido UniversityTokudaJapan
  9. 9.Center for Ecological ResearchKyoto UniversityOtsuJapan
  10. 10.Graduate School of Life SciencesTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan
  11. 11.Department of General Systems StudiesUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan
  12. 12.Research Institute for Humanity and NatureKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations