IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v413y2019ics0304380019303382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-ecological mechanisms for persistence of native Australian grasses under pressure from nitrogen runoff and invasive species

Author

Listed:
  • Thampi, Vivek A.
  • Bauch, Chris T.
  • Anand, Madhur

Abstract

Nitrogen runoff in certain southeastern Australian grasslands promotes the invasion of exotic grassland species at the expense of native species. Mitigation programs can reduce runoff and thus support native species, but their success may require the awareness and support of local populations. This situation represents a coupled socio-ecological system, since nitrogen runoff caused by local populations can enable the invasion of exotic grassland species, which can in turn stimulate a social response to restore the native species. Our objective is to use a mathematical model to identify potential socio-ecological mechanisms for the persistence of native grassland species, and the parameter regimes for which these mechanisms operate. We couple a model of southeastern Australian grassland dynamics with a model of human social dynamics concerning runoff mitigation. Nitrogen runoff can enter the ecosystem either through local sources under control of a human population, or through global sources not under their control. Humans learn mitigating behaviour socially, and respond to the prevalence of native and exotic grassland species. We find that socio-ecological dynamics introduce broad parameter regimes that are not present in the ecological system in isolation from the human system. We identify two mechanisms for native grassland persistence: one is associated with significant reductions in runoff rates and/or cost of runoff mitigation programs, resulting in a stable state where the native grassland species exists or dominates, with or without the support of socio-ecological feedback. A second mechanism associated with higher rates of nitrogen input supports persistence of the native species through oscillations in species abundance and mitigation behaviour in the human population. However, this state is less favourable to the native species because the oscillations may become extreme in amplitude. Finally, we find that increasing the cost of mitigation programs not only reduces mitigating behaviour in the population but also (more surprisingly) increases the tendency for the system to destabilize into a regime of oscillations in native species biomass. We conclude that multiple socio-ecological mechanisms could potentially support native species in grassland ecosystems under stress from nitrogen runoff and invasive species. Further research can refine such models to inform policy in the face of nonlinear socio-ecological responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Thampi, Vivek A. & Bauch, Chris T. & Anand, Madhur, 2019. "Socio-ecological mechanisms for persistence of native Australian grasses under pressure from nitrogen runoff and invasive species," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 413(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:413:y:2019:i:c:s0304380019303382
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380019303382
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108830?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2016. "Incentivizing and Tendering Conservation Contracts: The Trade-off between Participation and Effort Provision," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(2), pages 273-291.
    2. Richter, Andries & Dakos, Vasilis, 2015. "Profit fluctuations signal eroding resilience of natural resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-21.
    3. Steven J. Lade & Alessandro Tavoni & Simon A. Levin & Maja Schl�ter, 2013. "Regime shifts in a social-ecological system," GRI Working Papers 105, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    4. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    5. Fikret Berkes, 2007. "Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 41(2), pages 283-295, May.
    6. Rodrigo León Cordero & Suma M & Siddhartha Krishnan & Chris T. Bauch & Madhur Anand, 2018. "Elements of indigenous socio-ecological knowledge show resilience despite ecosystem changes in the forest-grassland mosaics of the Nilgiri Hills, India," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Peter D. Howe & Ezra M. Markowitz & Tien Ming Lee & Chia-Ying Ko & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2013. "Global perceptions of local temperature change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 352-356, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heggerud, Christopher M. & Wang, Hao & Lewis, Mark A., 2022. "Coupling the socio-economic and ecological dynamics of cyanobacteria: Single lake and network dynamics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mirza, M. Usman & Richter, Andries & van Nes, Egbert H. & Scheffer, Marten, 2019. "Technology driven inequality leads to poverty and resource depletion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 215-226.
    2. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    3. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    4. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    5. Yongdeng Lei & Jing’ai Wang & Yaojie Yue & Hongjian Zhou & Weixia Yin, 2014. "Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 70(1), pages 609-627, January.
    6. Ana Raquel Nunes, 2021. "Exploring the interactions between vulnerability, resilience and adaptation to extreme temperatures," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(3), pages 2261-2293, December.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    8. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    9. Vollmer Uwe, 2004. "Streissler, E.W. (Hrsg.), Studien zur Entwicklung der ökonomischen Theorie XIX," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 224(6), pages 758-759, December.
    10. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    11. Astrid Dannenberg & Carlo Gallier, 2020. "The choice of institutions to solve cooperation problems: a survey of experimental research," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 716-749, September.
    12. Maida, Agata & Pezone, Vincenzo, 2024. "CEO Pay Disclosure and Within-Firm Wage Inequality," IZA Discussion Papers 17243, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Dufwenberg, Martin & Patel, Amrish, 2019. "Introduction to special issue on psychological game theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 181-184.
    14. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Don’t Tell Me What to Do, Tell Me Who to Follow! - Field Experiment Evidence on Voluntary Donations," Working Papers in Economics 452, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Busby, Joshua & Smith, Todd G. & Krishnan, Nisha & Wight, Charles & Vallejo-Gutierrez, Santiago, 2018. "In harm's way: Climate security vulnerability in Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 88-118.
    16. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    17. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    18. Antonides, Gerrit & Kroft, Maaike, 2005. "Fairness judgments in household decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 902-913, December.
    19. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    20. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:413:y:2019:i:c:s0304380019303382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.