Modelling variation in bushmeat harvesting among seven African ecosystems using the Madingley Model: yield, survival and ecosystem impacts
Barychka, T.; Mace, G. M.; Purves, D. W.
Show abstract
In principle, both the maximum sustainable yields of bushmeat, and the ecosystem impacts of extracting those yields, are likely to vary among ecosystems due to differences in the structure and function of ecosystems, but the data necessary to estimate this variation is lacking. Here, we compare seven different ecosystems on a North-South latitudinal gradient in Central Africa in terms of their trophic structure and capacity to support yields from bushmeat harvesting, using the Madingley General Ecosystem Model. The only factor that varies across simulations of these ecosystems is the climate which drives differences in vegetation structure and function, leading in turn to differences in the structure of the ecological community that emerge from the model. In a series of experiments (n=30), we simulate constant proportional harvesting of small and medium-sized warm-bloodied heterotrophs (1-23kg) over 30 years, recording expected bushmeat yields, and impacts on ecosystem structure, including trophic structure. Predictions for animal densities and trophic structures in the pristine (no harvesting) case varied among the ecosystems, with implications for bushmeat harvesting. For example, wooded savannah ecosystems stood out as having the greatest pristine densities in the target groups (11000-12000 animals per kilometre squared), greatest yields (100% higher than the tropical forest and 1000% higher than the desert ecosystem), and were the most resilient to harvesting. By contrast, small and medium-sized endothermic heterotrophs contributed only a small proportion of heterotrophs in the desert ecosystem, and thus the potential for bushmeat harvesting here was low. In all ecosystems, harvesting at the rate that maximised yield (55-65% population per year, except for the southern desert ecosystem) had strong impacts, causing drastic reductions in target functional groups, coupled with increases in smaller- and larger-bodied animals. Forest and desert ecosystems were particularly sensitive. Overall, the results suggest that, even for similar functional groups, bushmeat harvesting policies will need to vary substantially among ecosystems - and show that general ecosystem models could be a useful tool in helping to guide these policies.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The Madingley General Ecosystem Model predicts bushmeat yields, species extinction rates and ecosystem-level impacts of bushmeat harvesting 98%
- Resilience trinity: safeguarding ecosystem services across three different time horizons and decision contexts 94%
- Unifying ecosystem resistance, resilience, and recovery from extreme stress into a single statistical framework 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting species and community responses to global change in Australian mountain ecosystems using structured expert judgement 95%
- Ecological theory predicts ecosystem stressor interactions in freshwater ecosystems, but highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the additive null model 91%
- Delayed effects of climate on vital rates lead to demographic divergence in Amazonian forest fragments 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trophic complexity alters the diversity-multifunctionality relationship in experimental grassland mesocosms 93%
- Disturbance Sensitivity Shapes Patterns of Tree Species Distribution in Afrotropical Lowland Rainforests More Than Climate or Soil 92%
- Including tree spatial extension in the evaluation of neighbourhood competition effects in Bornean rain forest 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.