USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70038490

Top 10 principles for designing healthy coastal ecosystems like the Salish Sea

Abstract

Like other coastal zones around the world, the inland sea ecosystem of Washington (USA) and British Columbia (Canada), an area known as the Salish Sea, is changing under pressure from a growing human population, conversion of native forest and shoreline habitat to urban development, toxic contamination of sediments and species, and overharvest of resources. While billions of dollars have been spent trying to restore other coastal ecosystems around the world, there still is no successful model for restoring estuarine or marine ecosystems like the Salish Sea. Despite the lack of a guiding model, major ecological principles do exist that should be applied as people work to design the Salish Sea and other large marine ecosystems for the future. We suggest that the following 10 ecological principles serve as a foundation for educating the public and for designing a healthy Salish Sea and other coastal ecosystems for future generations: (1) Think ecosystem: political boundaries are arbitrary; (2) Account for ecosystem connectivity; (3) Understand the food web; (4) Avoid fragmentation; (5) Respect ecosystem integrity; (6) Support nature's resilience; (7) Value nature: it's money in your pocket; (8) Watch wildlife health; (9) Plan for extremes; and (10) Share the knowledge.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 46.25° to 51.5° latitude; -126.83333333333333° to -120.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joseph K. Gaydos, Leslie Dierauf, Grant Kirby, Deborah Brosnan, Kirsten Gilardi, Gary E. Davis. 2009-03-04. Top 10 principles for designing healthy coastal ecosystems like the Salish Sea. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-009-0209-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Potential effects of environmental conditions on prairie dog flea development and implications for sylvatic plague epizootics

Fleas are common ectoparasites of vertebrates worldwide and vectors of many pathogens causing disease, such as sylvatic plague in prairie dog colonies. Development of fleas is regulated by environmental conditions, especially temperature and relative humidity. Development rates are typically slower at low temperatures and faster at high temperatures, which are bounded by lower and upper thresholds where development is reduced. Prairie dogs and their associated fleas (mostly Oropsylla spp) live in burrows that moderate outside environmental conditions, remaining cooler in summer and warmer in winter. We found burrow microclimates were characterized by stable daily temperatures and high relative humidity, with temperatures increasing from spring through summer. We previously showed temperature increases corresponded with increasing off-host flea abundance. To evaluate how changes in temperature could affect future prairie dog flea development and abundance, we used development rates of O. montana (a species related to prairie dog fleas), determined how prairie dog burrow microclimates are affected by ambient weather, and combined these results to develop a predictive model. Our model predicts burrow temperatures and flea development rates will increase during the twenty-first century, potentially leading to higher flea abundance and an increased probability of plague epizootics if Y. pestis is present.

Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South

Future directions to manage wildlife health in a changing climate

In September 2019 The Economist wrote an obituary to Okjökull, a glacier in western Iceland that was declared “dead” in 2014, a victim of climate change. Although a few wildlife species have already incurred such a fate (e.g., the Bramble Cay melomys [ Melomys rubicola ]) (Fulton 2017), many more are on the path to climate-driven extinction (Andermann et al. 2020; Ceballos et al. 2015; He et al. 2019; Roman-Palacios and Wiens 2020; Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019; WWF 2020).

EcoHealth

Response to “Prepublication communication of research results”: The need for a coordinated wildlife disease surveillance laboratory network

In “Prepublication Communication of Research Results”, Adams et al. ( 2018 ) outline the importance of timeliness in providing scientific results with consequential implications for wildlife management to responsible government agencies. The authors discuss various impediments to sharing of scientific results and provide well-reasoned arguments why scientists should not fear that sharing these results with wildlife management agencies will preclude their ability to subsequently publish this information in the peer-reviewed literature.

EcoHealth