Challenges in Applied Ecology.

Harry P. Andreassen

Hedmark University College - HIHM

---

Abstract

Increased resource extraction and utilisation combined with the anticipated changes in climate will have large impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by natural landscapes. Applied Ecology applies ecological theory to improve policy and management decisions, amongst others, so that we can continue to exploit natural resources in the face of these pressures. Here I describe applied ecology, show its historic development in the literature, and discuss the challenges of communication between scientists from different disciplines and between scientists and managers. It is often argued that scientists have to improve their skills to communicate scientific results. I argue that research in Applied Ecology focuses too heavily on the human impact on single species systems, and insufficiently on designing ground breaking research which integrates ecosystems, management decisions, and social and economic sciences, and which is directly connected to test improvements of management decisions. Hence, it is not only a matter of communication skills, scientists also have to develop and test more applied and interdisciplinary questions.

Key words: : applied ecology, economy, ecosystem services, management, eco-sociology.

Norsk sammendrag:

Økt ressursutnyttelse kombinert med klimaendringene vil få store konsekvenser for biologisk mangfold og økosystemtjenester. Anvendt økologi bruker økologisk teori for å forbedre miljøforvaltningen, blant annet for å sikre en fortsatt utnyttelse av de biologiske ressursene: vilt, fisk, ville planter og planteprodukter, kulturplanter, skogprodukter og husdyr. Her beskriver jeg anvendt økologi, viser den historiske utviklingen av anvendt økologi i den vitenskapelige litteraturen, og drøfter utfordringene i kommunikasjonen mellom forskere og forvaltning. En del av utfordringene med anvendt økologi sies å være at forskere må bli flinkere til å formidle vitenskapelige resultater på en forståelig måte. Her hevder jeg at forskning i anvendt økologi fokuserer for mye på den menneskelige påvirkning av bestander, og i mindre grad utvikler forskning som tester de økologiske, økonomiske og samfunnsmessige konsekvensene av forvaltningsbeslutninger. Det er også viktig å teste forvaltningsbeslutninger på økosystemnivå og ikke bare på forvaltede enkeltbestander. Derfor er det ikke bare et spørsmål om kommunikasjonsferdigheter, forskere må også utvikle bedre og mer anvendte spørsmål på tvers av fagfelt.

Introduction

”In our time, as the need to expand the output of food for the rapidly rising population of the world becomes more acutely felt, and as development accelerates throughout the world, the scope and tasks of applied ecology cannot but increase” (Bunting and Wynne-Edwards 1964, 2)

Through evolutionary time we have lost 99% of the 4 billion species that have evolved (Novacek 2001). When the earth loses a species, it is primarily a natural process which is balanced by speciation (a background extinction of ca 1 out of 1 million species yearly). There have, however, been described five mass extinctions when the earth lost more than 2/3 of its species, each occurring over a period of around 2 million years. Now we are approaching the sixth mass extinction where we expect to lose more than 75% of all species, but within only a few hundred years (Barnosky 2011). The natural extinction rate and the extinction rates observed during the 5 historic mass extinctions are negligible compared to the extinction rate we experience today (100 - 5 000 times higher than the natural extinction rate, estimated as the average extinction rate over the last 100 million years).

There is good evidence that the approaching mass extinction is solely due to human activity such as habitat destruction and fragmentation, direct exploitation, introduction of alien species, spreading of pathogens and discharge of environmental poisons or climatic gasses (Pimm et al. 1995, Dirzo and Raven 2003, Wake and Vredenburg 2008, Hoffmann et al. 2010, Joppa et al. 2010, Barnosky et al. 2011). The eradication of species is one of the major environmental threats today as we depend on these species for ecosystem services such as provisioning by wildlife, the binding of CO2 by forests, the provision of clean water, oxygen and the like. Hence, the air we breathe, the food we eat, the materials we use and will develop for buildings, fuel, clothes, computers and medicines depend on a high biodiversity. We also need biodiversity to provide ecosystem services such as pollination, recycling, nitrogen fixation, information (e.g. genetic engineering, pure science) and for its intrinsic psycho-spiritual value (aesthetic beauty, religious awe, scientific knowledge) (see e.g. Meffe and Carroll 1997). The existence of high biodiversity will allow for the rise of goods and services from species that have not yet been identified.

There may be many motivations to apply ecological theory, but the preservation of biodiversity for future ecosystem services is certainly a main driver of Applied Ecology. There has therefore been a strong development of Applied Ecology and related applied disciplines closely connected to ecology over the last 50 years. However, it is not at all clear that Applied Ecology is a discipline in its own right, or a subdiscipline of ecology. Olson (1998) argued that basic ecology focuses on general questions that operate in a variety of nonspecific systems, while applied ecology emphasises finding answers to real world environmental problems. Often these environmental problems are posed by managers and the answers may be complex involving processes across disciplines and at various scales (e.g. ecological and social scales; Gibson et al. 2000, Cumming et al. 2006). Thomas and Blanford (1999) argued that the answers in applied ecology would be based on empirical work and be more specific to the system and area studied than traditional basic ecology, and thereby lower the intellectual and scientific value of applied ecology compared to basic ecology.

Here I draw attention towards the development of the field of Applied Ecology by discussing a way to understand Applied Ecology, reviewing how the main topics in Applied Ecology have changed over the last 50 years, some challenges and the future needs in Applied Ecology.

A description of Applied Ecology

Ecology is defined as the interactions that determine the distribution and abundance of organisms (Krebs 2001), and how humans and natural processes change these patterns through time and space. Applied ecology focuses on the application of ecological concepts, theories, models and methods to address current real-world problems, with the ultimate aim to develop improved management practices (Freckleton et al. 2005, Memmott et al. 2009). Already at the time applied ecology was defined with its own scientific journal (Journal of Applied Ecology), it was obvious that applied ecology would use ecology extensively in situations of economic or social interest to man (Bunting and Wynne-Edwards 1964). Hence, applied ecological studies should aim to recommend some kind of action associated with the exploitation of biological resources, for instance as increased biological production, sustainability of harvesting, or equally well the protection of biodiversity. I limit myself to biological resources and not to natural resources in general because ecology as a biological science focuses on living organisms. Major biological resources will therefore be fish, wildlife, plants and their derivatives, as well as products from forestry, crops and livestock.

Today, human impact on the environment has become a major topic in applied ecology as humans change the environment at a rate and spatial scale that are overwhelming the natural resilience and resistance of species, communities and ecosystems. In addition, applied ecology focuses on mitigation, sustainable use and monitoring issues.

The focus on mitigation to minimize human impacts on the environment is important in applied ecology. Examples are strategies for conservation, habitat management, restoration, and harvesting. Mitigation is essential component of the sustainable use of biological resources, as these resources are important for human welfare from economic, social and ecological perspectives. By sustainable use, I mean that the resource is not depleted in the long run so maintaining an economic sustainability for generations to come, that other biodiversity is not threatened by the use of the resource in focus and that the use is socially accepted. In this respect land use for agriculture, agricultural practices, use of agricultural products, harvesting models and utilisation of the environment for tourism and recreation are central topics. To ensure sustainable use of biological resources, we also need to monitor organisms, habitats and ecosystems.

Ultimately applied ecology has the purpose of informing managers and users of biological resources. Management decisions are not only dependent on the ecological responses, but must consider economic issues and public perception of the decisions. Hence, there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach to applied ecological research to successfully inform management of biological resources. In this respect, it is important to examine the needs and expectations of the various stakeholders (e.g., land owners, hunters, fishers) together with the official managers of fish, wildlife, vegetation and land areas. As Memmott et al. (2009, 1) write:

‘Working proactively with environmental managers, collaborating with colleagues in the social and physical sciences, and holding two-way conversations with policy makers and the public are all in the job description of the modern applied ecologist’ (see also Hulme 2011).

Historical development of applied ecology in the literature

The first issue of the Journal in Applied Ecology appeared in 1964, and it is still the primary journal within applied ecology today (Bunting and Wynne-Edwards 1964, Milner-Gulland et al. 2013). The journal was launched shortly after the original IUCBN red list was created in 1963 (www.iucnredlist.org) and just before the journal Biological Conservation appeared in 1968. I am not saying that the appearance of these journals was connected to each other or to the red list, but these events all show the increasing interest in environmental issues in the 1960s. For the 50 year anniversary of the Journal of Applied Ecology, Milner-Gulland et al. (2013) described how the main topics in the journal have changed through time. She describes the first two decades of the journal during the 1960s and 1970s as a period focusing on improving the productivity of agricultural ecosystems. Probably as a result of the green revolution in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s there was a strong focus on agricultural pest species that lowered crop productivity and affected the income from agriculture. In the 1980s, studies on agricultural pests were still dominant, but now developed towards understanding their population dynamics and the employment of biological pest control. Even though it had been described earlier, it was first in the 1990s that studies showed how the management of agricultural land could have consequences for biodiversity. During the last decade there has been an increasing interest in biodiversity, conservation biology, and landscape ecology. Agriculture is still an important topic in applied ecology although the focus has shifted to maintaining or enhancing biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Milner-Gulland et al. (2013) shows these changes by the shift in use of certain terms in the papers published in Journal of Applied Ecology from the period 1964-69 to 2010-11. For instance the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘biodiversity’ now appear in almost all papers, and ‘policy’, ‘management’ and ‘recommendation’ have become much more frequent than in the 1960s. The change is obvious as ‘biodiversity’ was not found in any paper in the journal before the 1990s and ‘invasive’ is now appearing in every third paper while it was almost absent till late the 1990s. In contrast, terms like ‘crop’ and ‘pesticide’ are disappearing.

When the Journal of Applied Ecology was launched there had already been journals focusing on management issues for a long time. For instance the Journal of Wildlife Management was started in 1937. But after the appearance of the Journal of Applied Ecology several other journals appeared showing the same change in focus as Milner-Gulland et al. (2013) describes (see also Lowe et al 2009). Conservation Biology started in 1987 as a response to conservation organizations (Soule 1985, 1987), and even though biology was the underlying discipline of conservation it was obvious from the beginning that the field of conservation biology was interdisciplinary including disciplines such as paleontology, climatology, oceanography, anthropology, philosophy, ethics and economics (see also Meine et al. 2006). In contrast to applied ecology which also focused on the use of biological resources, conservation biology was more directly related to conservation issues.

The journal Lanscape Ecology was also launched in 1987 and was dedicated to correcting biospheric disorder (Golley 1987). Landscape Ecology focused on the spatial mosaic of landscapes and was based in a tradition in human geography and holistic ecology. It was clearly multidisciplinary, embracing landscape designers, soil scientists, geographers, modellers and biogeographers (Wiens et al. 1993). The ecological tradition of landscape ecology, studying the effects of landscape heterogeneity, habitat destruction and fragmentation on ecological principles, has been less apparent in the journal.

Similar responses to applied questions have resulted in a variety of newer scientific journals illustrating the need for knowledge in certain specific topics. This can be shown by the launch of Restoration Ecology in 1993 to advance the scientific knowledge of restoration of damaged ecosystems (Rieger 1993). Ecological Applications, a more theoretical version of Journal of Applied Ecology, was launched in 1991, Ecosystems in 1998, Ecological Economics in 1989. More recently Human Dimensions of Wildlife was launched in 1996 and Ecology and Society in 2004, after starting in 1997 as Conservation Ecology. Ecology and Society is today bridging “ecological, political, and social foundations for resilient and sustainable social–ecological systems” (Folke and Gunderson 2004, 19). This list just shows that the scientific basis for the application of ecological theory is quite recent, arising in response to threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Milner-Gulland et al. (2013, 2) states that the future of the Journal of Applied Ecology will increase focus

"on the sustainable management of natural and semi-natural ecosystems, where these can sustain human livelihoods or bring benefits in the form of ecosystem services, the protection of threatened species and conservation of biodiversity".

It is also obvious that studies on individual species will need a wider perspective of sustainable natural environments if they are going to be considered by the journal in the future.

The challenge of communication

Applied ecology is associated with protection and conservation, and is therefore opposed by values connected to economic growth and the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. This contrast has been apparent in spite of the fact that ecology, as a scientific discipline, should be value neutral (but see Ludwig et al. (2001) who discusses on page 503 that: "scientific inferences and theories cannot be separated from the values of those who conduct research"). In Norway, for instance, the exploitation of forest-, game- and fish- resources has been an important part of daily life for generations, and ecology has been a term that has created conflicts rather than solutions. However, during recent decades, the use of ecological knowledge has enabled people to increase harvests of timber, wildlife and fish (see e.g. references below); and through this knowledge we have been able to manage many of these resources sustainably. Without sound ecological knowledge, many more natural resources would have been overexploited.

The contrast between neutral scientific values and economic values, as well as between users of different biological resources, causes conflicts that complicate management. The complexities caused by multiple users can nonetheless be managed successfully, as shown by the management of the Scandinavian forests for multi-functional purposes. Besides the production of various forestry products such as timber and bioenergy, forest areas are used for livestock production, tourism, hunting, fishing, recreation, and for the protection of biological diversity. Today Norwegian forests contain 2.5 times more timber volume than in 1925 (Hylen 2013, see also Sylwan 2011). This has coincided with an increase in moose, red deer and roe deer populations (Milner et al. 2006), which are important species for hunting and wildlife viewing, and are vital to rural economies and quality of life. Moreover, the protection of large carnivores in Scandinavia, such as the wolf Canis lupus and brown bear Ursus arctos, has caused a recent recovery of their populations from near extinction (Swenson et al. 2000, Wabakken et al. 2001). Hence, both forestry and wildlife management in Norway have a successful history in recent decades. However, the increase in wildlife populations creates new challenges. High moose densities cause an increase in forest damage and moose-vehicle accidents. The increase in large carnivore populations causes conflicts with local communities. These conflicts require new interdisciplinary insights and approaches to create a balance between different user interests.

The example from the Norwegian forest ecosystem shows a major challenge for applied ecology: The understanding and use of scientific results in decision making, management and communication between stakeholders. To a large extent scientists feel that their results are ignored in the day-today management of species and ecosystems (Nature 2007, Born et al. 2009, Milner-Gulland et al. 2010, Hulme 2011). It is said that this is due to the difficulties with scientific communication (Lawton 2007, Hulme 2011, Milner-Gulland et al. 2012, Sutherland 2013). Lawton (2007, 465) argues that the process of influencing policy with scientific results is "messy, complex and iterative, with many other legitimate players and some less legitimate vying for the attention of government". We can therefore not expect a direct change of policy due to scientific evidence, but should rather cooperate with social scientists to help communicate the results in a way that policy makers understand. However, a master thesis cited in Milner-Gulland et al. (2012) found that 57% of authors asked, believed that their papers have had real-world impact. Ormerod et al. (2002) and Milner-Gulland et al. (2010) also show that ecological science is affecting environmental management and policy both directly and more diffusely through conceptual advance. There is also increasing awareness of the significance of communication skills (Memmott et al. 2009, Hulme 2011) and the need for improved communication between management and scientists (see also Sutherland et al. 2006, 2012). Wolf management and research in Scandinavia provide a good example of this improved communication. Carnivore researchers from the Scandinavian wolf project (Skandulv) and Swedish and Norwegian local and national managers has the last decade met annually for a 2-day seminar discussing new results, research plans and management issues.

The means of communication between various stakeholders is developing quickly, recognising that successful knowledge based management includes the building of competence among the stakeholders responsible for or concerned with the management and conservation of natural areas. An aim of applied ecologists should therefore be to close the gap between researchers and managers.

Equally there is a challenge for applied ecologists to communicate well with researchers from different scientific disciplines (but see Ludwig et al. 2001). Interdisciplinary projects tend often to become multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary. It is difficult to integrate the methodologies and theories from various disciplines into the same project. We should also aim to close this gap, for instance by combining population models with economic models to test various management principles (e.g. Skonhoft et al. 2006). One complication in interdisciplinary work that has been discussed is the mismatch in the spatial scale of social structures, ecological processes and management units (Gibson et al. 2000, Cumming et al. 2006, Andreassen et al. 2014). How does one solve management issues when the boundaries of political or management units do not coincide with those of ecological processes? One example is migratory routes of wildlife that can cross several stakeholders’ interests and political and management units. Ignoring the spatial resolution of the ecological process will result in sub-optimal management of wildlife and other renewable resources. Another example is the optimal management unit for Scandinavian large carnivores. From an ecological point of view this should be the whole of Scandinavia. However, this large scale would incorporate the difference in attitudes towards carnivores between Norway and Sweden (Gangaas et al. 2013a, b), which would increase the conflict level and make management difficult (Andreassen et al. 2014). It is important to take attitudes seriously for environmental management to be functional. We need to understand the spatial scale at which variability is being introduced into environmental attitudes, and the stability of attitudes over time (i.e. the temporal scale), not least because policy is based on public opinions (Manfredo et al. 1999, Milner-Gulland et al. 2012).

Conclusion and Recommendation

The need for applied ecology is urgent, and consequently several study programs in applied ecology have emerged around the world in recent years. These new studies will create innovative graduate students who will be entrepreneurs for an improved stewardship of nature, ranging from the protection of biological diversity to improving the commercialisation and management of biological resources such as crops, livestock, forests, wildlife and fish in a way that is sustainable for generations to come. There is also a need to improve research in applied ecology. The future of research in applied ecology will concern more with managed sustainable ecosystems and biosphere, compared to studies of single populations in natural systems. As applied ecology intends to recommend actions, we need experiments testing the soundness of practical advice (Bunting and Wynne Edwards 1964, Memmott et al. 2009), where we compare managed areas with control areas in a replicated manner. Such experiments are demanding as they require large areas and the collaboration with at least managers, landowners and funding organisations. There is also a challenge for applied ecologists to ask new and innovative questions based on ecological theory that will provide answers to pressing issues in applied ecology. Too often, studies in applied ecology focus on human impact on single species systems, rather than designing ground breaking research which integrates ecosystems, management decisions, and social and economic sciences. Future studies in applied ecology should develop interdisciplinary, testable hypotheses involving an ecosystem and not a single species system. Ecosystem management has been used as a buzz word for some time, but there is still a lack of ecosystem studies from terrestrial systems. Such studies of ecosystems should include humans and their use of the system.

This require a scientific approach where we can create scenarios which optimize at least three different values: (1) ecological sustainability - often related to conservation and biodiversity; (2) communities’ acceptance of the measures that are to be implemented; and (3) economics. Such optimisation is, however, hampered by the completely different measurement units and scales of these three elements. The ecological sustainability can perhaps be measured as a probability for population viability, or some measure of biodiversity. Acceptance is possible to estimate from questionnaires as tolerance, while economy is measured in Euros. Furthermore, the economic value of ecological sustainability is relatively intangible and consequently the direct economic consequences of applied ecological research are obscure (Milner-Gulland et al. 2012). And how do we really consider these three values against each other? Are they equally valid or are some more important than others? For a social, economic and ecological sustainable future it is precisely this trade-off between economy, conservation and people's attitudes we need to optimize, and it is this interdisciplinary approach we need as applied ecologists to make our research truly useful. We are totally dependent on this knowledge to exploit natural resources in a sustainable manner so that we can sustain current economic growth and welfare.

The science of applied ecology is developing rapidly and we should be part of that and contribute to its future. Interdisciplinary collaboration is emerging as one of the most important characteristics for the future application of ecological knowledge. The specialists are disappearing as ‘nobody can be an expert in all the aspects of complicated environmental, social, ethical, and economic issues’ (Ludwig et al. (2001, 481). Ludwig et al. (2001, 481) further states that:

"The next generation of ecologists must be prepared to interact with such disciplines as history, religion, philosophy, geography, economics, and political science. The requisite training must involve not only words, but core skills in these disciplines".

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to all colleagues that have contributed to our awareness of applied ecology on campus, to Erik Stange for comments and to Jos Milner for comments and proof reading.

Literature cited

Andreassen, H.P., Gangaas, K.E. & Kaltenborn, B.P. 2014. Matching social-ecological systems by understanding the spatial scale of environmental attitudes. Biological Conservation (Submitted).

Barnosky, A.D. et al. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57.

Born, J., Boreux, V. & Lawes, M.J. 2009 Synthesis: sharing ecological knowledge – the way forward. Biotropica 41: 586–588.

Bunting, A.H. & Wynne-Edwards, V.C. 1964. Editorial. Journal of Applied Ecology 1: 1-2.

Cumming, G.S., Cumming, D.H.M. & Redman, C.L. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11.

Dirzo, R. & Raven, P.H. 2003. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annual Review Environment and Resources. 28: 137–167.

Folke, C. & Gunderson, L. 2004. Challenging complexities of change—the first issue of Ecology and Society. Ecology and Society 9: 19

Freckleton, R.P., Hulme, P., Giller, P. & Kerby, G. 2005. The changing face of applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 1-3.

Gangaas, K.E., Kaltenborn, B.P. & Andreassen, H.P. 2013a. Geo-spatial aspects of acceptance of illegal hunting of large carnivores in Scandinavia. PLosOne 8: e68849.

Gangaas, K.E., Kaltenborn, B.P. & Andreassen, H.P. 2013b. Spatial dimensions of environmental value orientation and attitudes to carnivores in Scandinavia. Environmental Conservation (in press).

Gibson, C.C., Ostrom, E. & Ahn, T.K. 2000. The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecological Economics 32: 217-239

Golley, F. 1987. Introducing landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 1: 1–3.

Hoffmann, M. et al.. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330: 1503-1509.

Hulme, P.E. 2011. Practitioner’s perspectives: Introducing a different voice in applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1-2.

Hylen, G. 2013. Landsskogtakseringen gir grunnlaget for et bærekraftig Skogbruk. Skog & Landskap: http://www.skogoglandskap.no/nyheter/2013/landsskogtakseringen_gir_grunnlag_ for_et_barekraftig_skogbruk

Joppa, L.N., Roberts, D.L. & Pimm, S.L. 2010. How many species of flowering plants are there? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 278: 554-559.

Krebs, C.J. 2001. Ecology. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, USA.

Lawton, J.H. 2007. Ecology, politics and policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 465-474.

Lowe, P., Whitman, G., & Phillipson, J. 2009. Ecology and the social sciences. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 297-305.

Ludwig, D., Mangel, M. & Haddad, B. 2001. Ecology, conservation and public policy. Annual Review in Ecology and Systematics 32: 481-517.

Manfredo, M.J., Pierce, C.L., Fulton, D., Pate, J. & Gill, B.R. 1999. Public acceptance of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 499-508.

Meffe, G.K. & Carroll, C.R. 1997. Principles of conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates Inc. Publishers, Massachusetts.

Meine, C., Soule, M. & Ross, R.F. 2006. A mission-driven discipline: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20: 631-651.

Memmott, J. et al. 2009. Putting applied ecology into practice. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 1-4.

Milner, J.M. et al. 2006. Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 721-734.

Milner-Gulland, E.J. et al. 2010. Do we need to develop a more relevant conservation literature? Oryx 44: 1–2.

Milner-Gulland, E.J. et al. 2012. Ensuring applied ecology has impact. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 1–5.

Milner-Gulland, E.J., Barlow, J., Cadotte, M., Hulme, P. & Wittingham, M.J. 2013. Celebrating the golden jubilee of the Journal of Applied Ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 1-3.

Nature. 2007. The great divide. Nature 450: 135–13

Novacek, M.J. (ed.) 2001. The Biodiversity Crisis: Losing What Counts. The New Press, New York.

Olson, M.J. 1998. Questions and answers at the interface of basic and applied ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 469.

Ormerod, S.J, Barlow, N.D., Marshall, E.J.P. & Kerby, G. 2002. The uptake of aplied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 1-7.

Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Gittleman, J.L. & Brooks, T.M. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269: 347–350.

Rieger, J.P. 1993. President’s message. Restoration Ecology 1: 2.

Skonhoft, A., Leirs, H., Andreassen, H.P., Mulungu, L.S.A. & Stenseth, N.C. 2006. The bioeconomics of controlling an African rodent pest species. Environment and Development Economics 11: 453-475.

Soule, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? A new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and problems of perturbed species, communities, and ecosystems. Bioscience 35: 727-734.

Soule, M.E. 1987. History of the Society for Conservation Biology: how and why we got here. Conservation Biology 1: 4–5.

Sutherland, W.J. 2006. The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in UK. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 617-627.

Sutherland, W.J. et al. 2012. A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. Plos One 7: e31824.

Sutherland, W.J. 2013. Review by quality not quantity for better policy. Nature 503: 167.

Swenson, J. E., Gerstl, N., Dahle, B. & Zedrosser, A. 2000. Action plan for the conservation of the brown bear in Europe (Ursus arctos). [114], 1-70. 2000. Strasbourg Cedex, Council of Europe. Nature and environment.

Sylwan, P. 2011. Jorden och skogen - En essä om de areella näringarnas förändringar. Side 9-22 i Antonse, H. & Jansson, U. Jordbruk och skogsbruk i Sverige sedan år 1900: studier av de areella näringarnas geografi och historia. Kungl. Skogs- och lantbruksakademien. Skogs- och lantbrukshistoriska meddelanden nr. 53. Supplement till Kungl. Skogs- och lantbrukksakademiens tidsskrift.

Thomas, M.B. & Blanford, S. 1999. How much do we value applied environmental research? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:71.

Wabakken, P., Sand, H., Liberg, O. & Bjärvall, A. 2001. The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978-1998. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 710-725.

Wake, D.B. & Vredenburg, V.T. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the North Atlantic Academy of Science 105: 11466–11473.

Wiens, J.A., Stenseth, N.C., Van Horne, B, & Ims, R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369-380.