What will future ecosystems look like?

After I posted my piece about deer culling the other day, I received quite a few comments including these from /r/Billiesjeans (thank you). Here is some of my response to the question, what will future ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More look like?.

QUESTION. The introduced grazers are likely to have a different ecological function(Of an ecosystem). A subset of ecosystem processes and structures, where the ecosystem does something that provides an ecosystem service of value to people. More than the original grazers, so what would this new balance of forest and open landscapes look like, especially since there is also a lack of predators in many areas? Could this also favour non-native vegetation?

ANSWER. The short answer is, no-one knows. As for ‘original grazers’, ecosystems are created by animals, not by plants. Ecosystems that lost their animals long ago, shift to a new chaotic state but more importantly, the cultural connection between ecosystem function and animal culture and knowledge is lost.

That takes thousands of years to replace (this connection relates both to indigenous culture and animal culture). 

Ecological scientists tend to think that highly disturbed animal-rich areas that are transforming back into dynamic grassland mosaics are not natural (or the abundance of a transformative animal makes it a ‘pest’). In temperate areas, it’s common to believe the historic view that forest was the predominant natural state. In Europe, it is largely believed that is the case but that’s now being disproved. In Australia too, it’s only been in recent years that it’s been shown that ‘natural’ systems were in fact, not forest-dominated.

The most habitable systems in fact, existed long before our current civilisation took hold and were much more diverse … since then, we’ve allowed forests to develop unhindered and that has led to a decline in biodiversityWhat is the definition of biodiversity? When we ask, what is the definition of biodiversity? It depends on what we want to do with it. The term is widely and commonly misused, leading to significant misinterpretation of the importance of how animals function on Earth and why they matter a great deal, to human survival. Here I will try to More and habitability over whole continents like Europe and Australia. It is beginning to happen in Africa too, where whole areas of previously herbivore-rich environment are now naturally reafforesting. Just because much of our remaining wildlife is in forests, doesn’t mean that was always the case.

QUESTION. Do you just favour natural processes over human intervention?

ANSWER: Increasingly, yes. The biggest problem is that our interventions very often reverse maximum entropy productionWhere an ecosystem achieves a steady stable-state with the maximum possible number of species and there is very little free surplus energy because it is all consumed inside biological processes. Entropy dictates that all matter moves towards chaos but animal life enables ecosystems to continually move in the opposite direction. Reaching a state of maximum entropy production is essential for More processes, which sets back ecosystem stabilisation by thousands of years. The way ecosystems function can’t be created using mechanistic force. EntropyThe degree of disorder or chaos in a system, most often used to describe thermodynamic energy but also used the behaviour of information. All else being equal, physics determines that all matter and energy moves towards chaos, therefore biological systems are in a continual state of battling against entropic forces in order to remain stable. The most stable ecosystem is More processes operate in a different way and can only be manipulated to an outcome, by creating an environment that befits stable structures. Each time we intervene by killing animals, we usually break the structures.

QUESTION. Aren’t introduced species just as unnatural as culling populations?

ANSWER. No. Because no matter what we do, native or non-native species-wise, we can never predict the outcome. This is because complex systems will develop according to structure … it’s a bit like having a play with understudies. The play will be the same but the characters will be played differently. If you employ a different set designer, it will look different and that will impact how its directed – no-one can even predict even that simple outcome.

The truth is, we don’t actually know what will work and what won’t, but we do know that stabilising ecosystems requires animals in certain size-abundance ratios. It’s also very likely that many non-native pests will become suppressed when those structures are reformed.