The biotic crisis and the future of evolution

The biotic crisis overtaking our planet is likely to precipitate a major extinction of species. That much is well known. Not so well known but probably more significant in the long term is that the crisis will surely disrupt and deplete certain basic processes of evolution, with consequences likely to persist for millions of years. Distinctive features of future evolution could include a homogenization of biotas, a proliferation of opportunistic species, a pest-and-weed ecology, an outburst of speciation among taxa that prosper in human-dominated ecosystems, a decline of biodisparity, an end to the speciation of large vertebrates, the depletion of “evolutionary powerhouses” in the tropics, and unpredictable emergent novelties. Despite this likelihood, we have only a rudimentary understanding of how we are altering the evolutionary future. As a result of our ignorance, conservation policies fail to reflect long-term evolutionary aspects of biodiversity loss.

Lessons from the past: Evolutionary impacts of mass extinctions

Mass extinctions have played many evolutionary roles, involving differential survivorship or selectivity of taxa and traits, the disruption or preservation of evolutionary trends and ecosystem organization, and the promotion of taxonomic and morphological diversifications—often along unexpected trajectories—after the destruction or marginalization of once-dominant clades. The fossil record suggests that survivorship during mass extinctions is not strictly random, but it often fails to coincide with factors promoting survival during times of low extinction intensity. Although of very serious concern, present-day extinctions have not yet achieved the intensities seen in the Big Five mass extinctions of the geologic past, which each removed ≥50% of the subset of relatively abundant marine invertebrate genera. The best comparisons for predictive purposes therefore will involve factors such as differential extinction intensities among regions, clades, and functional groups, rules governing postextinction biotic interchanges and evolutionary dynamics, and analyses of the factors that cause taxa and evolutionary trends to continue unabated, to suffer setbacks but resume along the same trajectory, to survive only to fall into a marginal role or disappear (“dead clade walking”), or to undergo a burst of diversification. These issues need to be addressed in a spatially explicit framework, because the fossil record suggests regional differences in postextinction diversification dynamics and biotic interchanges. Postextinction diversifications lag far behind the initial taxonomic and morphological impoverishment and homogenization; they do not simply reoccupy vacated adaptive peaks, but explore opportunities as opened and constrained by intrinsic biotic factors and the ecological and evolutionary context of the radiation.

Lessons from the past: Biotic recoveries from mass extinctions

Although mass extinctions probably account for the disappearance of less than 5% of all extinct species, the evolutionary opportunities they have created have had a disproportionate effect on the history of life. Theoretical considerations and simulations have suggested that the empty niches created by a mass extinction should refill rapidly after extinction ameliorates. Under logistic models, this biotic rebound should be exponential, slowing as the environmental carrying capacity is approached. Empirical studies reveal a more complex dynamic, including positive feedback and an exponential growth phase during recoveries. Far from a model of refilling ecospace, mass extinctions appear to cause a collapse of ecospace, which must be rebuilt during recovery. Other generalities include the absence of a clear correlation between the magnitude of extinction and the pace of recovery or the resulting ecological and evolutionary disruption the presence of a survival interval, with few originations, immediately after an extinction and preceding the recovery phase, and the presence of many lineages that persist through an extinction event only to disappear during the subsequent recovery. Several recoveries include numerous missing lineages, groups that are found before the extinction, then latter in the recovery, but are missing during the initial survival–recovery phase. The limited biogeographic studies of recoveries suggest considerable variability between regions.

Loss of speciation rate will impoverish future diversity

Human activities have greatly reduced the amount of the earth's area available to wild species. As the area they have left declines, so will their rates of speciation. This loss of speciation will occur for two reasons: species with larger geographical ranges speciate faster; and loss of area drives up extinction rates, thus reducing the number of species available for speciation. Theory predicts steady states in species diversity, and fossils suggest that these have typified life for most of the past 500 million years. Modern and fossil evidence indicates that, at the scale of the whole earth and its major biogeographical provinces, those steady states respond linearly, or nearly so, to available area. Hence, a loss of x% of area will produce a loss of about x% of species. Local samples of habitats merely echo the diversity available in the whole province of which they are a part. So, conservation tactics that rely on remnant patches to preserve diversity cannot succeed for long. Instead, diversity will decay to a depauperate steady state in two phases. The first will involve deterministic extinctions, reflecting the loss of all areas in which a species can ordinarily sustain its demographics. The second will be stochastic, reflecting accidents brought on by global warming, new diseases, and commingling the species of the separate bio-provinces. A new kind of conservation effort, reconciliation ecology, can avoid this decay. Reconciliation ecology discovers how to modify and diversify anthropogenic habitats so that they harbor a wide variety of species. It develops management techniques that allow humans to share their geographical range with wild species.

What was natural in the coastal oceans?

Humans transformed Western Atlantic coastal marine ecosystems before modern ecological investigations began. Paleoecological, archeological, and historical reconstructions demonstrate incredible losses of large vertebrates and oysters from the entire Atlantic coast. Untold millions of large fishes, sharks, sea turtles, and manatees were removed from the Caribbean in the 17th to 19th centuries. Recent collapses of reef corals and seagrasses are due ultimately to losses of these large consumers as much as to more recent changes in climate, eutrophication, or outbreaks of disease. Overfishing in the 19th century reduced vast beds of oysters in Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries to a few percent of pristine abundances and promoted eutrophication. Mechanized harvesting of bottom fishes like cod set off a series of trophic cascades that eliminated kelp forests and then brought them back again as fishers fished their way down food webs to small invertebrates. Lastly, but most pervasively, mechanized harvesting of the entire continental shelf decimated large, long-lived fishes and destroyed three-dimensional habitats built up by sessile corals, bryozoans, and sponges. The universal pattern of losses demonstrates that no coastal ecosystem is pristine and few wild fisheries are sustainable along the entire Western Atlantic coast. Reconstructions of ecosystems lost only a century or two ago demonstrate attainable goals of establishing large and effective marine reserves if society is willing to pay the costs. Historical reconstructions provide a new scientific framework for manipulative experiments at the ecosystem scale to explore the feasibility and benefits of protection of our living coastal resources.

The future of coral reefs

Coral reefs, with their millions of species, have changed profoundly because of the effects of people, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Reefs are subject to many of the same processes that affect other human-dominated ecosystems, but some special features merit emphasis: (i) Many dominant reef builders spawn eggs and sperm into the water column, where fertilization occurs. They are thus particularly vulnerable to Allee effects, including potential extinction associated with chronic reproductive failure. (ii) The corals likely to be most resistant to the effects of habitat degradation are small, short-lived “weedy” corals that have limited dispersal capabilities at the larval stage. Habitat degradation, together with habitat fragmentation, will therefore lead to the establishment of genetically isolated clusters of inbreeding corals. (iii) Increases in average sea temperatures by as little as 1°C, a likely result of global climate change, can cause coral “bleaching” (the breakdown of coral–algal symbiosis), changes in symbiont communities, and coral death. (iv) The activities of people near reefs increase both fishing pressure and nutrient inputs. In general, these processes favor more rapidly growing competitors, often fleshy seaweeds, and may also result in explosions of predator populations. (v) Combinations of stress appear to be associated with threshold responses and ecological surprises, including devastating pathogen outbreaks. (vi) The fossil record suggests that corals as a group are more likely to suffer extinctions than some of the groups that associate with them, whose habitat requirements may be less stringent.

Disrupting evolutionary processes: The effect of habitat fragmentation on collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks

Humans affect biodiversity at the genetic, species, community, and ecosystem levels. This impact on genetic diversity is critical, because genetic diversity is the raw material of evolutionary change, including adaptation and speciation. Two forces affecting genetic variation are genetic drift (which decreases genetic variation within but increases genetic differentiation among local populations) and gene flow (which increases variation within but decreases differentiation among local populations). Humans activities often augment drift and diminish gene flow for many species, which reduces genetic variation in local populations and prevents the spread of adaptive complexes outside their population of origin, thereby disrupting adaptive processes both locally and globally within a species. These impacts are illustrated with collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris) in the Missouri Ozarks. Forest fire suppression has reduced habitat and disrupted gene flow in this lizard, thereby altering the balance toward drift and away from gene flow. This balance can be restored by managed landscape burns. Some have argued that, although human-induced fragmentation disrupts adaptation, it will also ultimately produce new species through founder effects. However, population genetic theory and experiments predict that most fragmentation events caused by human activities will facilitate not speciation, but local extinction. Founder events have played an important role in the macroevolution of certain groups, but only when ecological opportunities are expanding rather than contracting. The general impact of human activities on genetic diversity disrupts or diminishes the capacity for adaptation, speciation, and macroevolutionary change. This impact will ultimately diminish biodiversity at all levels.

Human-caused environmental change: Impacts on plant diversity and evolution

Human-caused environmental changes are creating regional combinations of environmental conditions that, within the next 50 to 100 years, may fall outside the envelope within which many of the terrestrial plants of a region evolved. These environmental modifications might become a greater cause of global species extinction than direct habitat destruction. The environmental constraints undergoing human modification include levels of soil nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium and pH, atmospheric CO2, herbivore, pathogen, and predator densities, disturbance regimes, and climate. Extinction would occur because the physiologies, morphologies, and life histories of plants limit each species to being a superior competitor for a particular combination of environmental constraints. Changes in these constraints would favor a few species that would competitively displace many other species from a region. In the long-term, the “weedy” taxa that became the dominants of the novel conditions imposed by global change should become the progenitors of a series of new species that are progressively less weedy and better adapted to the new conditions. The relative importance of evolutionary versus community ecology responses to global environmental change would depend on the extent of regional and local recruitment limitation, and on whether the suite of human-imposed constraints were novel just regionally or on continental or global scales.

Plant biology in the future

In the beginning of modern plant biology, plant biologists followed a simple model for their science. This model included important branches of plant biology known then. Of course, plants had to be identified and classified first. Thus, there was much work on taxonomy, genetics, and physiology. Ecology and evolution were approached implicitly, rather than explicitly, through paleobotany, taxonomy, morphology, and historical geography. However, the burgeoning explosion of knowledge and great advances in molecular biology, e.g., to the extent that genes for specific traits can be added (or deleted) at will, have created a revolution in the study of plants. Genomics in agriculture has made it possible to address many important issues in crop production by the identification and manipulation of genes in crop plants. The current model of plant study differs from the previous one in that it places greater emphasis on developmental controls and on evolution by differential fitness. In a rapidly changing environment, the current model also explicitly considers the phenotypic variation among individuals on which selection operates. These are calls for the unity of science. In fact, the proponents of “Complexity Theory” think there are common algorithms describing all levels of organization, from atoms all the way to the structure of the universe, and that when these are discovered, the issue of scaling will be greatly simplified! Plant biology must seriously contribute to, among other things, meeting the nutritional needs of the human population. This challenge constitutes a key part of the backdrop against which future evolution will occur. Genetic engineering technologies are and will continue to be an important component of agriculture; however, we must consider the evolutionary implications of these new technologies. Meeting these demands requires drastic changes in the undergraduate curriculum. Students of biology should be trained in molecular, cellular, organismal, and ecosystem biology, including all living organisms.

The evolutionary impact of invasive species

Since the Age of Exploration began, there has been a drastic breaching of biogeographic barriers that previously had isolated the continental biotas for millions of years. We explore the nature of these recent biotic exchanges and their consequences on evolutionary processes. The direct evidence of evolutionary consequences of the biotic rearrangements is of variable quality, but the results of trajectories are becoming clear as the number of studies increases. There are examples of invasive species altering the evolutionary pathway of native species by competitive exclusion, niche displacement, hybridization, introgression, predation, and ultimately extinction. Invaders themselves evolve in response to their interactions with natives, as well as in response to the new abiotic environment. Flexibility in behavior, and mutualistic interactions, can aid in the success of invaders in their new environment.

Rapid plant diversification: Planning for an evolutionary future

Systematic conservation planning is a branch of conservation biology that seeks to identify spatially explicit options for the preservation of biodiversity. Alternative systems of conservation areas are predictions about effective ways of promoting the persistence of biodiversity; therefore, they should consider not only biodiversity pattern but also the ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain and generate species. Most research and application, however, has focused on pattern representation only. This paper outlines the development of a conservation system designed to preserve biodiversity pattern and process in the context of a rapidly changing environment. The study area is the Cape Floristic Region (CFR), a biodiversity hotspot of global significance, located in southwestern Africa. This region has experienced rapid (post-Pliocene) ecological diversification of many plant lineages; there are numerous genera with large clusters of closely related species (flocks) that have subdivided habitats at a very fine scale. The challenge is to design conservation systems that will preserve both the pattern of large numbers of species and various natural processes, including the potential for lineage turnover. We outline an approach for designing a system of conservation areas to incorporate the spatial components of the evolutionary processes that maintain and generate biodiversity in the CFR. We discuss the difficulty of assessing the requirements for pattern versus process representation in the face of ongoing threats to biodiversity, the difficulty of testing the predictions of alternative conservation systems, and the widespread need in conservation planning to incorporate and set targets for the spatial components (or surrogates) of processes.

Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution

Our global impact is finally receiving the scientific attention it deserves. The outcome will largely determine the future course of evolution. Human-modified ecosystems are shaped by our activities and their side effects. They share a common set of traits including simplified food webs, landscape homogenization, and high nutrient and energy inputs. Ecosystem simplification is the ecological hallmark of humanity and the reason for our evolutionary success. However, the side effects of our profligacy and poor resource practices are now so pervasive as to threaten our future no less than that of biological diversity itself. This article looks at human impact on ecosystems and the consequences for evolution. It concludes that future evolution will be shaped by our awareness of the global threats, our willingness to take action, and our ability to do so. Our ability is presently hampered by several factors, including the poor state of ecosystem and planetary knowledge, ignorance of human impact, lack of guidelines for sustainability, and a paucity of good policies, practices, and incentives for adopting those guidelines in daily life. Conservation philosophy, science, and practice must be framed against the reality of human-dominated ecosystems, rather than the separation of humanity and nature underlying the modern conservation movement. The steps scientists can take to imbed science in conservation and conservation in the societal process affecting the future of ecosystems and human well-being are discussed.

The current biodiversity extinction event: Scenarios for mitigation and recovery

The current massive degradation of habitat and extinction of species is taking place on a catastrophically short timescale, and their effects will fundamentally reset the future evolution of the planet's biota. The fossil record suggests that recovery of global ecosystems has required millions or even tens of millions of years. Thus, intervention by humans, the very agents of the current environmental crisis, is required for any possibility of short-term recovery or maintenance of the biota. Many current recovery efforts have deficiencies, including insufficient information on the diversity and distribution of species, ecological processes, and magnitude and interaction of threats to biodiversity (pollution, overharvesting, climate change, disruption of biogeochemical cycles, introduced or invasive species, habitat loss and fragmentation through land use, disruption of community structure in habitats, and others). A much greater and more urgently applied investment to address these deficiencies is obviously warranted. Conservation and restoration in human-dominated ecosystems must strengthen connections between human activities, such as agricultural or harvesting practices, and relevant research generated in the biological, earth, and atmospheric sciences. Certain threats to biodiversity require intensive international cooperation and input from the scientific community to mitigate their harmful effects, including climate change and alteration of global biogeochemical cycles. In a world already transformed by human activity, the connection between humans and the ecosystems they depend on must frame any strategy for the recovery of the biota.