Geology topics

Susannah B. Lerman

Publications and source records attributed to Susannah B. Lerman.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Restoration based on cost-benefit optimization: A grasslands pilot study

Ecological restoration is essential to meeting global biodiversity conservation goals. Given limited conservation budgets, deciding where to restore habitat is a key challenge for the coming decade. We developed a spatially explicit framework to optimize ecological restoration site selection by integrating land use history, species distributions, and economic costs. The framework includes the following steps: identify potential restoration area based on relevant environmental measures like land use; identify species of interest; calculate restoration benefits by modeling habitat and climate suitability and estimating reduced extinction risk associated with restoring a particular land parcel based on a modified species–area relationship; aggregate benefits across species; and compare to parcel-level land acquisition costs. We applied linear programming to maximize conservation benefit/restoration cost ratios to identify optimized restoration sites. We illustrate this approach using a case study for highly threatened grassland ecosystems in the Great Plains region of Kansas, USA. We selected five grassland animal species (greater prairie chickens [ Tympanuchus cupido ], lesser prairie chickens [ Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ], swift fox [ Vulpes velox ], pronghorn [ Antilocapra americana ], and regal fritillary [ Speyeria idalia ]) as indicators of restoration benefit across taxa. For the indicator species that we chose, shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies had the highest conservation benefit to cost ratio. Setting a minimum restoration threshold for each habitat type allowed us to identify high-priority tallgrass prairie sites. Despite increasing interest in ecological restoration, optimizing restoration site selection is challenging because one must consider habitat features that do not currently exist. The modeling approach described here is flexible and can be updated for different ecosystems, species, and conservation priorities. We outline potential alterations that can be made in future analyses, depending on desired restoration goals.

Kansas↗

USGS2025

Land use change consistently reduces α‐ but not β‐ and γ‐diversity of bees

Land use change threatens global biodiversity and compromises ecosystem functions, including pollination and food production. Reduced taxonomic α-diversity is often reported under land use change, yet the impacts could be different at larger spatial scales (i.e., γ-diversity), either due to reduced β-diversity amplifying diversity loss or increased β-diversity dampening diversity loss. Additionally, studies often focus on taxonomic diversity, while other important biodiversity components, including phylogenetic diversity, can exhibit differential responses. Here, we evaluated how agricultural and urban land use alters the taxonomic and phylogenetic α-, β-, and γ-diversity of an important pollinator taxon—bees. Using a multicontinental dataset of 3117 bee assemblages from 157 studies, we found that taxonomic α-diversity was reduced by 16%–18% in both agricultural and urban habitats relative to natural habitats. Phylogenetic α-diversity was decreased by 11%–12% in agricultural and urban habitats. Compared with natural habitats, taxonomic and phylogenetic β-diversity increased by 11% and 6% in urban habitats, respectively, but exhibited no systematic change in agricultural habitats. We detected a 22% decline in taxonomic γ-diversity and a 17% decline in phylogenetic γ-diversity in agricultural habitats, but γ-diversity of urban habitats was not significantly different from natural habitats. These findings highlight the threat of agricultural expansions to large-scale bee diversity due to systematic γ-diversity decline. In addition, while both urbanization and agriculture lead to consistent declines in α-diversity, their impacts on β- or γ-diversity vary, highlighting the need to study the effects of land use change at multiple scales.

Global Change Biology↗

USGS2024

Biodiversity promotes urban ecosystem functioning

The proportion of people living in urban areas is growing globally. Understanding how to manage urban biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services is becoming more important. Biodiversity can increase ecosystem functioning in non-urban systems. However, few studies have reviewed the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in urban areas, which differ in species compositions, abiotic environments, food webs, and turnover rates. We reviewed evidence of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships in urban environments and assessed factors that influence the relationship direction. Based on 70 studies, relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning were more positive than negative in urban areas, especially for pollination and nutrient cycling and retention. Surprisingly, positive and negative relationships between biodiversity and biomass production and storage were equally not statistically different, perhaps due to extensive plant management in urban areas. The number of studies and geographic coverage of our review was still insufficient to provide a general predictive framework for when biodiversity positively impacts ecosystem functioning. We identify gaps and opportunities to improve urban biodiversity–ecosystem functioning research and discuss how our findings can improve urban green space management.

Ecography↗

USGS2024

Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage

Natural ecosystems store large amounts of carbon globally, as organisms absorb carbon from the atmosphere to build large, long-lasting, or slow-decaying structures such as tree bark or root systems. An ecosystem’s carbon sequestration potential is tightly linked to its biological diversity. Yet when considering future projections, many carbon sequestration models fail to account for the role biodiversity plays in carbon storage. Here, we assess the consequences of plant biodiversity loss for carbon storage under multiple climate and land-use change scenarios. We link a macroecological model projecting changes in vascular plant richness under different scenarios with empirical data on relationships between biodiversity and biomass. We find that biodiversity declines from climate and land use change could lead to a global loss of between 7.44-103.14 PgC (global sustainability scenario) and 10.87-145.95 PgC (fossil-fueled development scenario). This indicates a self-reinforcing feedback loop, where higher levels of climate change lead to greater biodiversity loss, which in turn leads to greater carbon emissions and ultimately more climate change. Conversely, biodiversity conservation and restoration can help achieve climate change mitigation goals.

Nature Communications↗

USGS2021

Bridging the research-implementation gap in avian conservation with translational ecology

The recognized gap between research and implementation in avian conservation can be overcome with translational ecology, an intentional approach in which science producers and users from multiple disciplines work collaboratively to co-develop and deliver ecological research that addresses management and conservation issues. Avian conservation naturally lends itself to translational ecology because birds are well studied, typically widespread, often exhibit migratory behaviors transcending geopolitical boundaries, and necessitate coordinated conservation efforts to accommodate resource and habitat needs across the full annual cycle. In this perspective, we highlight several case studies from bird conservation practitioners and the ornithological and conservation social sciences exemplifying the 6 core translational ecology principles introduced in previous studies: collaboration, engagement, commitment, communication, process, and decision-framing. We demonstrate that following translational approaches can lead to improved conservation decision-making and delivery of outcomes via co-development of research and products that are accessible to broader audiences and applicable to specific management decisions (e.g., policy briefs and decision-support tools). We also identify key challenges faced during scientific producer–user engagement, potential tactics for overcoming these challenges, and lessons learned for overcoming the research-implementation gap. Finally, we recommend strategies for building a stronger translational ecology culture to further improve the integration of these principles into avian conservation decisions. By embracing translational ecology, avian conservationists and ornithologists can be well positioned to ensure that future management decisions are scientifically informed and that scientific research is sufficiently relevant to managers. Ultimately, such teamwork can help close the research-implementation gap in the conservation sciences during a time when environmental issues are threatening avian communities and their habitats at exceptional rates and at broadening spatial scales worldwide.

Ornithological Applications↗