Jonathan, over at the spring in the Francis Marion National Forest near Charleston, South Carolina. The spring has recently slowed down. The old people that I’ve asked said the spring has always been there, with no other specifics. I go over there to collect drinking water. But for some reason just in the past year or so it is noticeably slower. The little spring flows into a brackish run that goes on into the east Cooper river.
Why do you suppose it would slow down?
Next question will be..if the spring contributes less freshwater to that stream, then will the wildlife move away if it becomes too salty?
My guess would be water abstraction for agriculture or some industrial use. And, yes, you'd expect over longer periods for salinity to increase. But in the near term, a reduction in cool groundwater will have a wide range of ecological impacts, which could cause species to move away or be outcompeted by more tolerant species etc.
I once commissioned a macroinvertebrate study of high energy headwater streams in the Berkshire Mtns in Massachusetts, formerly USA (soon to be USR???) Researchers found a >60% unique diversity in those streams, i.e. over 60% of the species found in each stream were unique to that sub-watershed. Yes, not found in any of the other streams.
Species richness is important, and knowing it’s rate of change over time is important too, but the biodiversity represented in these healthy sub-watersheds, in areas with few or no roads/development, is a critical piece of the puzzle. As climate changes, and other human impacts on habitats persist (microplastics? opaque spherules?) what becomes of these unique critters? To me, it’s not just a matter of how many different species are found there, but which ones? Where is home for species x,y, or z?
Great reflection, Sally! Yes, there can be incredible turnover among headwater streams. They really are key refuges for some species. While they may often be low in the number of species locally, they can vary considerably among segments. So the value is in the whole: i.e. we need to protect not just single sections of rivers, but whole catchments.
A beautiful explanation. As much as our data can show us what is happening, it's what we can't measure and see that I also worry about. For example, the shift in the use of artificial light at night and what we don't see as easily in the data about the complex interactions of species and light (our human selves included). We still have so much to learn. So much of our knowledge about biodiversity still seems invisible, and so anything we can do with data and stories to help us all understand what is happening to our biodiversity is so vital. I also really like that you explain the graphs to bring everyone along on the journey.
Thanks so much, Angela! So glad to get that feedback and that the explanations are helpful! And yes, well said: it's what we can't see that's concerning.
I subscribed, then upgraded after my first read. Fantastic info. A couple things:
1. My doctoral advisor found interesting patterns in trout streams in Michigan, USA following pathogen-caused decline in a grazing caddisfly and resulting increases in overall richness. I saw similarities in your work and that study.
"Pathogen outbreaks reveal large‐scale effects of competition in stream communities"
Steven L Kohler, Michael J Wiley
Ecology 78 (7), 2164-2176, 1997
2. "Phenological mismatches" as a term seems to fall short in this instance. "Phenological desynchronization" may be a more accurate term given that phenological matching or synchronization has been disrupted by human activity. "Mismatch" fails to convey that.
Just my opinion.
"Such shifts are called ‘phenological mismatches’, where species that depend on each other, like pollinators and plants or predators and prey, become out of sync..."
Hi David. So great to connect and thanks so much for the upgrade! Very much appreciate it.
That's so cool. I know Steven Kohler's work very well. He wrote a few what I consider classics in stream ecology on the role of interactions among species. In fact, a colleague and I recently wrote a book chapter on "Species interactions and community structure" in the book "Foundations in Stream Ecology" and his work featured a couple of times. These books feature foundational papers with associated commentary for why they were foundational. His work didn't feature as one of the main papers we featured, but it did get used a couple of times because it was so timely and important.
Re: Terminology. Good point! Happy to receive counter opinions! Many thanks and yes I see your point.
Steven Kohler was a colleague of my awesome major advisor. Mike Wiley at UM-Ann Arbor, where I did my Ph.D.. My dissertation looked at taxa relationships in watersheds in Michigan. Testing indicator species theory, etc.
My masters was in toxicology so ive been interested in interactions since.
Just popping in to say hello as another Michigander—and that I like the suggestion of Phenological desynchronization to explain this phenomena. Perhaps the more technical word would be intimidating to some, but I agree it’s the more precise description of the issue.
Regardless, a fascinating and concerning topic! It’s something we see directly in agriculture, too, or at least adjacent to things we see in ag. Perennial plants breaking dormancy too early, and suffering frost damage as a result, higher parasite pressures as winters become milder on average… I’m sure these same pressures affect wild ecosystems as well.
Yes, farmers and growers are at the coalface here. So much uncertainty with the changing timing of things. That can be the difference between making money and losing money. And the almond industry is a prime example of something that is suffering due to issues with mutualistic partners.
And in many ways, the honey industry itself. I was just thinking through where we might place some hives (a beekeeper friend just reached out), and wondering if a slower-to-warm north facing spot might be better than a more traditional south facing area. In our region at least, bees are waking up with the unusually warm midwinter and early spring temps, but with no forage to feed on, and running through their winter honey reserves before they can be replaced with spring blooms.
Sure thing: contact details at the bottom of my lab website: https://tonkinlab.org. I won't post my email here in case it exposes it to more spam bots.
I love your work. I am a non-scientist (although my son is a biology professor) so remember my ignorance as I throw out a few ideas. I wonder if it is possible to compare changes in ecosystem biodiversity between places that have long been tamed by humans like Finland and Germany, (in the studies cited here) versus areas where the taming of truly wild and diverse nature is still going on-- much of the Americas and New Guinea say. I read somewhere that one of first big losses in biodiversity of the US as land was settled was fresh water molluscs, that snails and mussels endemic to particular river systems. I suspect that reduction happened long ago in Germany and Finland but in much of the neotropics, it is probably happening right now. I figure the neotropics has the highest biodiversity in the world because it is the tropics least affected by humans. I recently travelled in northern India which has been the most densely populated part of the world for over 2000 years. The birding was very good for me there. I also recently visited the Yucatan in Mexico and the birding was not as good. I am not a great birder and I travel the world visiting cities for work or pleasure, not on wilderness-visiting trips so most of the birds I see are birds that are friendly to human habitation and/or like the forest/clearing transitions that humans provide. In Yucatan, the birding didn't get good until I went deeper into the forest. In India there was plenty to see in the towns and margins. I am guessing the birds in India have had about 3000 more years to adapt to human changes in the landscape than Yucatan birds have had. (Pesticide spraying for control of disease carrying mosquitoes is quite active in both places I believe. One could also compare changes biodiversity between areas that have large scale insecticide spraying and areas that don't have that) In India there are a few species of monkeys who have urbanized and I believe these monkeys far outnumber fully wild forest monkeys on the Indian subcontinent. In the neotropics there is a ittle bit of urbanization by a few species of tamarins in Brazilian cities but most of the Neotropics do not have urbanized monkeys. Not yet anyway. Thanks for your work.
Wow, Leapin' Louie, what a note! Lot's to cover there :) Thanks for your thoughts -- all very sensible.
Yes, biodiversity in long-developed regions is not free of human signal at all. Even in the neotropics, there's a very long history of forest modification through traditional management approaches. The forests there may seem untouched but they've a long history of management, which alters the assemblages. Yes, there's been a fair chunk of research comparing developed and developing places. The challenge with such studies is all the confounding factors. Many developing places are near the equator, which are naturally richer in biodiversity compared to say Finland, which has a very short growing season and a bunch of other things related to latitude. Something interesting from stream biodiversity is that you can see a signal in the data of what the historical land use was. So regardless of how 'pristine' a site is, the biodiversity still often reflects the 'ghost of land use past'. And in Europe, the signal of climate change, for instance, has so far been masked by a recovery of land from the past degradation. Germany for instance, has much less pollution now than 100 years ago so the stream fauna reflect this recover, despite all the new stressors that streams are being hit with.
Sounds like you have a super interesting life! Thanks for your thoughts. I may not have answered all your questions so please do follow up if so.
Thanks for attempting full answers to my unclear overly big questions. Climate change signals are often overshadowed by human land use changes. The gorgeous city of Guanajuato, Mexico was built 500 years over a river, but there is no more river in that valley. The valley was forested before, now it's not. That's probably land use change causing local climate change with only a very minor lift from global climate change. In the Western USA, I live in Oregon, the forests are changing rapidly and forest fire patterns are changing rapidly. I'm sure forestry scientists are making scientific estimates of what percentage of the changes can be assigned to global climate change but forestry/land uses practices are the stronger influence.
Yes, it's pretty hard to accurately weigh up the role of climate vs. other drivers. So far, however, land use change has been a much bigger driver of biodiversity loss than climate change. But the role of CC in driving biodiversity loss will increase with increasing CC. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adn3441
I lived in Corvallis for 3 years until 2018 so know Oregon well, and miss it.
What a beautiful share, thanks Timothy! Lots to take in there. I enjoyed reading the whole thing. And Mary Oliver ❤️ -- she's just amazing. I love her work -- her keenness and observation skills are amazing.
So many changes are happening as you say.
I live in New Zealand. I lived in Corvallis OR for three years and have a friend in Seattle so know that part of the world well. :)
I thank you for paying attention to these subtle changes in our environment.
Jonathan, over at the spring in the Francis Marion National Forest near Charleston, South Carolina. The spring has recently slowed down. The old people that I’ve asked said the spring has always been there, with no other specifics. I go over there to collect drinking water. But for some reason just in the past year or so it is noticeably slower. The little spring flows into a brackish run that goes on into the east Cooper river.
Why do you suppose it would slow down?
Next question will be..if the spring contributes less freshwater to that stream, then will the wildlife move away if it becomes too salty?
My guess would be water abstraction for agriculture or some industrial use. And, yes, you'd expect over longer periods for salinity to increase. But in the near term, a reduction in cool groundwater will have a wide range of ecological impacts, which could cause species to move away or be outcompeted by more tolerant species etc.
You're welcome :)
Great article! Very clear description of the interrelatedness of species to climate changes. Thank you.
Thanks so much, Lisa! :)
I once commissioned a macroinvertebrate study of high energy headwater streams in the Berkshire Mtns in Massachusetts, formerly USA (soon to be USR???) Researchers found a >60% unique diversity in those streams, i.e. over 60% of the species found in each stream were unique to that sub-watershed. Yes, not found in any of the other streams.
Species richness is important, and knowing it’s rate of change over time is important too, but the biodiversity represented in these healthy sub-watersheds, in areas with few or no roads/development, is a critical piece of the puzzle. As climate changes, and other human impacts on habitats persist (microplastics? opaque spherules?) what becomes of these unique critters? To me, it’s not just a matter of how many different species are found there, but which ones? Where is home for species x,y, or z?
Great reflection, Sally! Yes, there can be incredible turnover among headwater streams. They really are key refuges for some species. While they may often be low in the number of species locally, they can vary considerably among segments. So the value is in the whole: i.e. we need to protect not just single sections of rivers, but whole catchments.
A beautiful explanation. As much as our data can show us what is happening, it's what we can't measure and see that I also worry about. For example, the shift in the use of artificial light at night and what we don't see as easily in the data about the complex interactions of species and light (our human selves included). We still have so much to learn. So much of our knowledge about biodiversity still seems invisible, and so anything we can do with data and stories to help us all understand what is happening to our biodiversity is so vital. I also really like that you explain the graphs to bring everyone along on the journey.
Thanks so much, Angela! So glad to get that feedback and that the explanations are helpful! And yes, well said: it's what we can't see that's concerning.
Hi Jonathan,
I subscribed, then upgraded after my first read. Fantastic info. A couple things:
1. My doctoral advisor found interesting patterns in trout streams in Michigan, USA following pathogen-caused decline in a grazing caddisfly and resulting increases in overall richness. I saw similarities in your work and that study.
"Pathogen outbreaks reveal large‐scale effects of competition in stream communities"
Steven L Kohler, Michael J Wiley
Ecology 78 (7), 2164-2176, 1997
2. "Phenological mismatches" as a term seems to fall short in this instance. "Phenological desynchronization" may be a more accurate term given that phenological matching or synchronization has been disrupted by human activity. "Mismatch" fails to convey that.
Just my opinion.
"Such shifts are called ‘phenological mismatches’, where species that depend on each other, like pollinators and plants or predators and prey, become out of sync..."
Hi David. So great to connect and thanks so much for the upgrade! Very much appreciate it.
That's so cool. I know Steven Kohler's work very well. He wrote a few what I consider classics in stream ecology on the role of interactions among species. In fact, a colleague and I recently wrote a book chapter on "Species interactions and community structure" in the book "Foundations in Stream Ecology" and his work featured a couple of times. These books feature foundational papers with associated commentary for why they were foundational. His work didn't feature as one of the main papers we featured, but it did get used a couple of times because it was so timely and important.
Re: Terminology. Good point! Happy to receive counter opinions! Many thanks and yes I see your point.
Steven Kohler was a colleague of my awesome major advisor. Mike Wiley at UM-Ann Arbor, where I did my Ph.D.. My dissertation looked at taxa relationships in watersheds in Michigan. Testing indicator species theory, etc.
My masters was in toxicology so ive been interested in interactions since.
Very cool! It's great to connect with another stream ecologist -- it's a small world when it comes to stream ecology.
Just popping in to say hello as another Michigander—and that I like the suggestion of Phenological desynchronization to explain this phenomena. Perhaps the more technical word would be intimidating to some, but I agree it’s the more precise description of the issue.
Regardless, a fascinating and concerning topic! It’s something we see directly in agriculture, too, or at least adjacent to things we see in ag. Perennial plants breaking dormancy too early, and suffering frost damage as a result, higher parasite pressures as winters become milder on average… I’m sure these same pressures affect wild ecosystems as well.
Yes, farmers and growers are at the coalface here. So much uncertainty with the changing timing of things. That can be the difference between making money and losing money. And the almond industry is a prime example of something that is suffering due to issues with mutualistic partners.
And in many ways, the honey industry itself. I was just thinking through where we might place some hives (a beekeeper friend just reached out), and wondering if a slower-to-warm north facing spot might be better than a more traditional south facing area. In our region at least, bees are waking up with the unusually warm midwinter and early spring temps, but with no forage to feed on, and running through their winter honey reserves before they can be replaced with spring blooms.
Super interesting and very concerning! Life is continuing to get more challenging when relying on nature directly.
Jonathan Tonkin, is there any way to reach you directly? I’d like to invite you to present in a webinar series I produce.
Sure thing: contact details at the bottom of my lab website: https://tonkinlab.org. I won't post my email here in case it exposes it to more spam bots.
Very interesting & informative. Thank you. Looking forward to learning more.
Thanks Linda! Glad you think so.
I love your work. I am a non-scientist (although my son is a biology professor) so remember my ignorance as I throw out a few ideas. I wonder if it is possible to compare changes in ecosystem biodiversity between places that have long been tamed by humans like Finland and Germany, (in the studies cited here) versus areas where the taming of truly wild and diverse nature is still going on-- much of the Americas and New Guinea say. I read somewhere that one of first big losses in biodiversity of the US as land was settled was fresh water molluscs, that snails and mussels endemic to particular river systems. I suspect that reduction happened long ago in Germany and Finland but in much of the neotropics, it is probably happening right now. I figure the neotropics has the highest biodiversity in the world because it is the tropics least affected by humans. I recently travelled in northern India which has been the most densely populated part of the world for over 2000 years. The birding was very good for me there. I also recently visited the Yucatan in Mexico and the birding was not as good. I am not a great birder and I travel the world visiting cities for work or pleasure, not on wilderness-visiting trips so most of the birds I see are birds that are friendly to human habitation and/or like the forest/clearing transitions that humans provide. In Yucatan, the birding didn't get good until I went deeper into the forest. In India there was plenty to see in the towns and margins. I am guessing the birds in India have had about 3000 more years to adapt to human changes in the landscape than Yucatan birds have had. (Pesticide spraying for control of disease carrying mosquitoes is quite active in both places I believe. One could also compare changes biodiversity between areas that have large scale insecticide spraying and areas that don't have that) In India there are a few species of monkeys who have urbanized and I believe these monkeys far outnumber fully wild forest monkeys on the Indian subcontinent. In the neotropics there is a ittle bit of urbanization by a few species of tamarins in Brazilian cities but most of the Neotropics do not have urbanized monkeys. Not yet anyway. Thanks for your work.
Wow, Leapin' Louie, what a note! Lot's to cover there :) Thanks for your thoughts -- all very sensible.
Yes, biodiversity in long-developed regions is not free of human signal at all. Even in the neotropics, there's a very long history of forest modification through traditional management approaches. The forests there may seem untouched but they've a long history of management, which alters the assemblages. Yes, there's been a fair chunk of research comparing developed and developing places. The challenge with such studies is all the confounding factors. Many developing places are near the equator, which are naturally richer in biodiversity compared to say Finland, which has a very short growing season and a bunch of other things related to latitude. Something interesting from stream biodiversity is that you can see a signal in the data of what the historical land use was. So regardless of how 'pristine' a site is, the biodiversity still often reflects the 'ghost of land use past'. And in Europe, the signal of climate change, for instance, has so far been masked by a recovery of land from the past degradation. Germany for instance, has much less pollution now than 100 years ago so the stream fauna reflect this recover, despite all the new stressors that streams are being hit with.
Sounds like you have a super interesting life! Thanks for your thoughts. I may not have answered all your questions so please do follow up if so.
Thanks for attempting full answers to my unclear overly big questions. Climate change signals are often overshadowed by human land use changes. The gorgeous city of Guanajuato, Mexico was built 500 years over a river, but there is no more river in that valley. The valley was forested before, now it's not. That's probably land use change causing local climate change with only a very minor lift from global climate change. In the Western USA, I live in Oregon, the forests are changing rapidly and forest fire patterns are changing rapidly. I'm sure forestry scientists are making scientific estimates of what percentage of the changes can be assigned to global climate change but forestry/land uses practices are the stronger influence.
Yes, it's pretty hard to accurately weigh up the role of climate vs. other drivers. So far, however, land use change has been a much bigger driver of biodiversity loss than climate change. But the role of CC in driving biodiversity loss will increase with increasing CC. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adn3441
I lived in Corvallis for 3 years until 2018 so know Oregon well, and miss it.
Thank you - well compiled information, mostly ignored.
Thanks Richard.
Nice article, Jonathan! Informative indeed.
Thanks Lazaros! Appreciate that.
Good insight 😌 Can i translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a description of your newsletter?
Sure thing! Thanks.
What a beautiful share, thanks Timothy! Lots to take in there. I enjoyed reading the whole thing. And Mary Oliver ❤️ -- she's just amazing. I love her work -- her keenness and observation skills are amazing.
So many changes are happening as you say.
I live in New Zealand. I lived in Corvallis OR for three years and have a friend in Seattle so know that part of the world well. :)
Thanks for sharing! And a belated welcome to your friends to NZ! :)