Rice fields foster biodiversity

Restoration ecologists want to restore ecosystems that have been damaged or destroyed by human activity.  One approach they use is “rewilding” – which can mean different things to different people.  To some, rewilding involves returning large predators to an ecosystem, thereby reestablishing important ecological linkages.  To others, rewilding requires corridors that link different wild areas, so animals can migrate from one area to another.  One common thread in most concepts of rewilding is that once established, restored ecosystems should be self-sustaining, so that if ecosystems are left to their own devices, ecological linkages and biological diversity can return to pre-human-intervention levels, and remain at those levels in the future.

ardea intermedia (intermediate egret). photo by n. katayama

The intermediate egrit, Ardea intermedia, plucks a fish from a flooded rice field. Credit: N. Katayama.

Chieko Koshida and Naoki Katayama argue that rewilding may not always increase biological diversity.  In some cases, allowing ecosystems to return to their pre-human-intervention state can actually cause biological diversity to decline. Koshida and Katayama were surveying bird diversity in abandoned rice fields, and noticed that bird species distributions were different in long-abandoned rice fields in comparison to still-functioning rice fields.  To follow up on their observations, they surveyed the literature, and found 172 studies that addressed how rice field abandonment in Japan affected species richness (number of species) or abundance.  For the meta-analysis we will be discussing today, an eligible study needed to compare richness and/or abundance for at least two of three management states: (1) cultivated (tilled, flood irrigated, rice planted, and harvested every year), (2) fallow (tilled or mowed once every 1-3 years), and (3) long-abandoned (unmanaged for at least three years).

koshidafig1

Three different rice field management states – cultivated, fallow and long-abandoned – showing differences in vegetation and water conditions. Credit: C. Koshida.

Meta-analyses are always challenging, because the data are collected by many researchers, and for a variety of purposes.  For example, some researchers may only be interested in whether invasive species were present, or they may not be interested in how many individuals of a particular species were present. Ultimately 35 studies met Koshida and Katayama’s criteria for their meta-analysis (29 in Japanese and six in English).

Overall, abandoning or fallowing rice fields decreased species richness or abundance to 72% of the value of cultivated rice fields. As you might suspect, these effects were not uniform for different variables or comparisons. Not surprisingly, fish and amphibians declined sharply in abandoned rice fields – much more than other groups of organisms. Abundance declined more sharply in abandoned fields than did species richness.  Several other trends also emerged.  For example, complex landscapes such as yatsuda (forested valleys) and tanada (hilly terraces) were more affected than were simple landscapes.  In addition, wetter abandoned fields were able to maintain biological diversity, while dryer abandoned fields declined in richness and abundance.

koshidafig2

The effects of rice field abandonment or fallowing for eight different variables.  Effect size is the ln (Mt/Mc), where Mt = mean species richness or abundance for the treatment, and Mc = mean species richness for the control.  The treated field in all comparisons was the one that was abandoned for the longer time.  A positive effect size means that species richness or abundance  increased in the treated (longer abandoned) field, while a negative effect size means that species richness or abundance declined in the treated field. Numbers in parentheses are number of data sets used for comparisons.

When numerous variables are considered, researchers need to figure out which are most important.  Koshida and Katayama used a statistical approach known as “random forest” to model the impact of different variables on the reduction in biological diversity following abandonment.  This approach generates a variable – the percentage increase in mean square error (%increaseMSE) – which indicates the importance of each variable for the model (we won’t go into how this is done!).  As the graph below shows, soil moisture was the most important variable, which tells us (along with the previous figure above) that abandoned fields that maintained high moisture levels also kept their biological diversity, while those that dried out lost out considerably.  Management state was the second most important variable, as long-abandoned fields lost considerably more biological diversity than did fallow fields.

koshidafig4

Importance estimates of each variable (as measured by %increase MSE).  Higher values indicate greater importance.

Unfortunately, only three studies had data on changes in biological diversity over the long-term.  All three of these studies surveyed plant species richness over a 6 – 15 year period, so Koshida and Katayama combined them to explore whether plant species richness recovers following long-term rice field abandonment. Based on these studies, species richness continues to decline over the entire time period.

koshidafig6

Plant species richness in relation to time since rice fields were abandoned (based on three studies).

Koshida and Katayama conclude that left to their own devices, some ecosystems, like rice fields, will actually decrease, rather than increase, in biological diversity.  Rice fields are, however, special cases, because they provide alternatives to natural wetlands for many organisms dependent on aquatic/wetland environments (such as the frog below). In this sense, rice fields should be viewed as ecological refuges for these groups of organisms.

rana-porosa-porosa-tokyo-daruma-pond-frog.-photo-by-y.g.-baba.jpg

Rana porosa porosa (Tokyo Daruma Pond Frog). Credit: Y. G. Baba

These findings also have important management implications.  For example, conservation ecologists can promote biological diversity in abandoned rice fields by mowing and flooding. In addition, managers should pay particular attention to abandoned rice fields with complex structure, as they are particularly good reservoirs of biological diversity, and are likely to lose species if allowed to dry out. Failure to attend to these issues could lead to local extinctions of specialist wetland species and of terrestrial species that live in grasslands surrounding rice fields. Lastly, restoration ecologists working on other types of ecosystems need to carefully consider the effects on biological diversity of allowing those ecosystems to return to their natural state without any human intervention.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Conservation Biology. The reference is Koshida, C. and Katayama, N. (2018), Meta‐analysis of the effects of rice‐field abandonment on biodiversity in Japan. Conservation Biology, 32: 1392-1402. doi:10.1111/cobi.13156. Thanks to the Society for Conservation Biology for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2018 by the Society for Conservation Biology. All rights reserved.

Predators and livestock – “stayin’ alive.”

President Donald Trump was elected on a platform that included building a great wall whose purpose was to keep out unwanted intruders from the south, and that would be paid for (apparently magically) by these same intruders.  The idea of building a great wall has been around for a long time; the Great Wall of China was constructed over a time period of almost two thousand years to keep out unwanted intruders (this time from the north). Not surprisingly, the cost of that Great Wall was not borne by the unwanted intruders. More recently, in the 1880s, the government of Australia constructed a 5500 km fence designed to keep unwanted dingoes away from sheep that pasture in southeastern Australia. As Lily van Eeden describes, the Australian government spends about $10 million dollars per year to maintain the fence but there are almost no data to compare livestock losses on either side of the fence. Thus she and her colleagues decided to look at what was being done globally to evaluate the effectiveness of different methods of protecting livestock.

DingoFencePeter Woodard

The Dingo fence across southeastern Australia. Credit Peter Woodard.

The researchers grouped livestock protection approaches into five different categories: lethal control, livestock guardian animals such as dogs, llamas and alpacas, fencing, shepherding and deterrents. Lethal control includes using poison baits and systematic culling of populations of top predators. Deterrents include aversive conditioning of problem predators, chemical, auditory or visual repellents, and protection devices such as livestock protection collars.

Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at 10.28.16 AM

A guardian dog emerges from the midst of its flock in Bulgaria. Credit: Sider Sedefchev.

Van Eeden and her colleagues then did a meta-analysis to see which approach worked best. You can check out my blog from Aug. 2, 2017 (“Meta-analysis measures multiple mycorrhizal benefits to plants”) for a more detailed discussion of meta-analyses. Very briefly a meta-analysis is a systematic analysis of data collected by many other researchers. This is challenging because each study uses slightly different techniques and has different levels of rigor. For this meta-analysis, van Eeden and her colleagues used only two types of studies. One type is a before/after design, in which researchers kept data on livestock loss before the mitigation treatment as well as after. The second type is a control-impact design, in which there was a control group set aside, which did not receive the mitigation treatment. Each study also needed sample sizes (number of herds and/or number of years), means and standard deviations, and had to be run for at least two months to be used in the meta-analysis.

The researchers searched several databases (Web of Science, SCOPUS and European Commission LIFE project), Google Scholar, and also used more informal sources, to collect a total of more than 3300 records. However, after imposing the requirements for types of experimental design and data output, only 40 studies remained for the meta-analysis. Based on these data, all five mitigation approaches reduced predation on livestock. The effect size in the figure below compares livestock loss with the treatment to livestock loss without the treatment, so that a negative value indicates that the treatment is associated with reduced livestock loss. The researchers conclude that all five approaches are somewhat effective, but the large confidence intervals (the whiskers in the graph) make it difficult to unequivocally recommend one approach over another. The effectiveness of lethal control was particularly variable (hence the huge confidence interval), as three studies showed an increase in livestock loss associated with lethal control.

van EedenFig2

Mean effect size (Hedges’ d) and confidence intervals for five methods used to mitigate conflict between predators and livestock.  More negative effect size indicates a more effective treatment. Numbers in parentheses are number of studies used for calculating mean effect size.

Finding that non-lethal management is as effective (or possibly more effective) than lethal control tells us that we should probably be very careful about intentionally killing large carnivores, since, in addition to being cool animals that deserve a right to exist, they also perform some important ecosystem services. For example, in Australia, there are probably more dingoes northwest of the fence than there are south of the fence, so exclusion may  be working. However there is some evidence that there are also more kangaroos and rabbits south of the fence, which could be an unintended consequence of fewer predatory dingoes. Kangaroos and rabbits eat lots of grass, so keeping dingoes away could ultimately be harming the sheep populations. Dingoes may also kill or compete with invasive foxes and feral cats, which have both been shown to drive native species to extinction, so excluding dingoes may increase foxes and cats, threatening native species.  Van Eeden and her colleagues argue that different mitigation approaches work in different contexts, but that we desperately need evidence in the form of standardized evaluative studies to understand which approach is most suitable in a particular context.

van Eeden Fig.3

Context-specific approach to managing the co-exstence of predators and livestock.

In all contexts, cultural and economic factors interact in mitigating conflict between humans and carnivores. The dingo is officially labeled as a wild dog, which invaded Australia relatively recently (about 4000 years ago), so the public perception is that this species has a limited historical role. Other cultures may have a different view of their predators. For example, the Lion Guardian project in Kenya, which trains and supports community members to protect lions, has successfully built tolerance for lions by incorporating Maasai community cultural values and belief systems.

To use a phrase that President Trump recently forbade the Centers for Disease Control to use in their reports, our decisions about predator mitigation should be “evidence-based.” We need more controlled studies that address the success of different mitigation approaches in particular contexts. We also must understand the costs of removing predators from an ecosystem, as predator removal can initiate a cascade of unintended consequences.

note: the paper that describes this research is from the journal Conservation Biology. The reference is van Eeden, L. M., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., Macdonald, D. W., Ripple, W. J., Ritchie, E. G. and Newsome, T. M. (2018), Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conservation Biology, 32: 26–34. doi:10.1111/cobi.12959. Thanks to the Society for Conservation Biology for allowing me to use figures from the paper. Copyright © 2018 by the Society for Conservation Biology. All rights reserved.