Tricia G. Knoot

The State of the System and Steps Toward Resilience of Disturbance-dependent Oak Forests

Current ecological, economic, and social conditions present unique challenges to natural resource managers seeking to maintain the resilience of disturbance-dependent ecosystems, such as oak (Quercus spp.) forests. Oak-dominated ecosystems throughout the U.S. have historically been perpetuated through periodic disturbance, such as fire, but more recently show decline given shifting disturbance regimes associated with human land management decisions. We characterized the state of the social-ecological oak forest ecosystem in the midwestern U.S. through the perspectives of 32 natural resource professionals. Data from interviews with these change agents provided an integrative understanding of key system components, cross-scale interactions, dependencies, and feedbacks. Foremost, private landowner management decisions figured prominently in influencing oak regeneration success and were directly and indirectly shaped by a suite of interdependent ecological, e.g., deer herbivory, invasive shrub occurrence; economic, e.g., the cost of oak regeneration practices, the stumpage value of maple as compared to oak; and social forces, e.g., forestland parcelization, and personal relationships. Interviewees envisioned, and often preferred, a decline in oak dominance throughout the region, pointing to issues related to general landowner unwillingness to restore oak, the current trajectory of forest change, the threat of forest loss due to parcelization and housing development, and a combination of ecological and social factors that decrease the economic feasibility of restoration efforts. However, a decline in oak dominance may result in ecological communities that have no compositional equivalent on record and may not offer a desirable endpoint. Increasing social support offers the potential to enhance system capacity to manage for oak.

Adoption potential of nitrate mitigation practices: an ecosystem services approach

Nitrate pollution from agricultural drainage has caused water quality concerns worldwide, but there are several promising technologies to help mitigate this environmental degradation. While these practices primarily aim to improve water quality, they may also provide other ‘additive’ benefits or ecosystem services and the awareness of such benefits may influence their potential to be adopted by farmers. To investigate the impact that perceived ecosystem services has on a practices adoption potential, we used a mixed methods approach consisting of a literature review, producer surveys, and a group discussion to explore farmer interest in and perceived benefits (on-farm and regional) of seven subsurface drainage nitrate reduction practices (controlled drainage, bioreactors, wetlands, nitrogen management rate, nitrogen management timing, cover crops, and diversified crop rotations). The nitrogen management practices were shown to be accessible and realistic options for water quality improvement as they elicited high interest and had the highest level of compatibility. However, these practices did not provide many other complementary ecosystem services. Conversely, wetlands had a high literature review-derived ecosystem service count, but were considered to have low compatibility, and survey respondents indicated less interest in this practice. The practice of cover cropping showed more moderate, yet consistently positive results for all factors.

Understanding Climate Adaptation on Public Lands in the Upper Midwest: Implications for Monitoring and Tracking Progress.

There are limited examples of efforts to systematically monitor and track climate change adaptation progress in the context of natural resource management, despite substantial investments in adaptation initiatives. To better understand the status of adaptation within state natural resource agencies, we utilized and problematized a rational decision-making framework to characterize adaptation at the level of public land managers in the Upper Midwest. We conducted in-depth interviews with 29 biologists and foresters to provide an understanding of managers’ experiences with, and perceptions of, climate change impacts, efforts towards planning for climate change, and a full range of actions implemented to address climate change. While the majority of managers identified climate change impacts affecting their region, they expressed significant uncertainty in interpreting those signals. Just under half of managers indicated planning efforts are underway, although most planning is remote from local management. Actions already implemented include both forward-looking measures and those aimed at coping with current impacts. In addition, cross-scale dynamics emerged as an important theme related to the overall adaptation process. The results hold implications for tracking future progress on climate change adaptation. Common definitions or measures of adaptation (e.g., presence of planning documents) may need to be reassessed for applicability at the level of public land managers.

So you need a social monitoring plan: Now what?

Soil and water conservation personnel have a long tradition of collaborating and learning directly from the constituencies with whom they work. Collaborative, cooperative, and participatory arrangements between agencies, organizations, and stakeholders have been described as essential to effectively address ecosystem management goals. In the last two decades, collaborative efforts among managers and stakeholders have become more formal in character and have been defined as “adaptive comanagement” (Armitage et al. 2009). The adaptive comanagement approach allows for flexibility and responsiveness to new and emerging social and ecological issues, while paying particular attention to the diverse and dynamic interests of natural resource stakeholders (Pahl-Wostl 2006; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Atwell et al. 2010). A core value of this approach is enhancing the capacity of all stakeholders (e.g., farmers, conservation organizations, and government agencies) to reflect on management outcomes and adapt to meet project goals and expectations. Fulfilling this core value necessitates a structured approach to monitoring and evaluation (Plummer and Armitage 2007; Armitage et al. 2009), which can offer insights into effectiveness of various participatory approaches and encourages experimentation and adjustments that can address an individual project as well as an organizations strategies (Chess et al. 2000; Low and Randhir 2005). Most…

S. Clayton and G. Myers: Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature

While land use and land cover change have been repeatedly linked with diminishing ecosystem goods and services, there is continued frustration heard within ecological circles questioning why policy makers and citizens do not respond appropriately, and with an equal sense of urgency, to this information. Susan Clayton and Gene Myers, authors of the book, Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature (2009), aptly reiterate this commonly expressed predicament, noting that ‘‘modern environmental scientists may feel like Cassandra: blessed with the ability to foresee the future, but cursed in that no one will believe them (p. 16).’’ The field of conservation psychology helps answer questions concerning the complexity of human behavior, and the book by Clayton and Myers offers readers a broad understanding of the many facets of this emerging field, including applied tools for taking action. Most ecologists are aware of the mission-driven approach of conservation biology; likewise follows conservation psychology, with the goal, as described by the authors, as ‘‘not only to understand the interdependence between humans and nature but to promote a healthy and sustainable relationship (p. 2).’’ There is growing recognition from ecologists, and those in associated disciplines, of the need to better understand and build the social capacity to maintain ecosystem resilience and safeguard the valuable ecosystem goods and services that humans rely on. Building social capacity requires further theoretical understanding of the human–nature relationship and can involve an applied route through direct engagement with individuals and communities. The authors present a well-organized book that offers knowledge and tools for those who wish to understand and shape individual behavior and collective action that can enhance the social capacity to bolster, rather than degrade, ecosystem function. In Chap. 1 (Introducing the field of conservation psychology), Clayton and Myers present their primary reasoning for writing the book: the general limited involvement by those in the field of psychology in addressing environmental degradation directly caused by human activities. Their introductory chapter also nicely dissects the title of their book, including further clarification of their intention for referencing ‘‘human care’’ as the core principal to improving environmental outcomes. The authors also emphasize two important take-home points: (1) people do not always behave in a rational manner and therefore seemingly solid arguments for the importance of conservation is not necessarily enough to influence behavior; and (2) human behavior can change, suggesting the importance of well-informed interventions. These points are followed by tangible examples of how conservation psychology perspectives can and have been applied, T. G. Knoot (&) Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA e-mail: tknoot@iastate.edu