Title: Macroecology: Understanding Ecological Systems Through Global Comparison
Course Webpage: http://www.montana.edu/hansen/newpages/coursestaught.htm
Instructors: Andrew Hansen and Kathryn Ireland
Rubric and Venue: BIOE 445 (3 cr), M, W, F 2:10-3 pm, Lewis 407
Prerequisite: BIOB 370 Principles of Ecology or equivalent.
Textbook:
Chapin, III, F. Stuart, Matson, Pamela A., Vitousek, Peter M. 2011. Principles of Terrestrial
Ecosystem Ecology. Springer (http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4419-95032/contents/)
Overview: This is an advanced ecology course that is aimed at senior-level undergraduates. It
is designed to build on foundational lower level undergraduate ecology courses and allow the
undergraduates to begin shifting to the knowledge base and ways of thinking required in
graduate school. The class will examine forested biomes as integrated ecological systems,
compare similarities and differences among biomes in order to better understand general
ecological principles, and consider implications for place-based management.
The class will build on the sub-disciplines of population, community, and ecosystem
ecology to study “ecological systems”. Ecological systems encompass all levels of organization
and integrate all or many sub-disciplines in ecology in order to understand and manage them.
The use of sub-disciplines in ecology has helped us to simplify ecological systems and improve
our understanding of components of ecosystems. An important step in ecology is now to put the
pieces back together in order to understand and manage integrated ecological systems.
We will approach the study of ecological systems by examining how they differ across the
globe and identify the overarching principles that govern these differences. Traditionally,
ecologists have studied one or a few ecological systems in depth and their understanding of
physiology, population dynamics, community interactions, ecosystem processes and human land
use was heavily influenced by their particular systems of study. New technology now allows us
to know in-depth the functioning of many types of ecological systems across the planet.
Through comparison across biomes, we can better understand the factors that govern ecological
systems in particular locations. The role of disturbance in driving biodiversity, for example,
varies with soil fertility and ecosystem productivity. Disturbance can reduce diversity in low
productivity systems and increase it in more productive systems. Hence, the management of
disturbance needs to differ among ecosystems in order to achieve biodiversity objectives
Goals:
1. Integrate subdisciplines in ecology to understand “ecological systems”.
2. Better understand general ecological principles through comparison among biomes.
3. Draw on these principles to better tailor conservation and management strategies to
local places.
1
Course Structure:
 Lectures on key principles and geographic comparison
 Virtual field trips of global forest biomes
 Student lead active learning projects
Grading: Grading will be based on 3 exams (100 points each) and 8 student projects and one
virtual field trip (20 points each) for a total of 480 points.
Student Projects:
Students will be expected to work individually and in small groups to complete a series of
weekly projects throughout the semester. Projects will include reflection on prior coursework in
ecology, written response to assigned readings, presentation of reading material and leadership of
class discussion, and preparation and presentation of virtual field trips for the rest of the class.
Anticipated Learning Outcomes:
1. Ecology Department majors will be able to synthesize among sub-disciples such as
animal behavior, population ecology, community ecology, and ecosystem ecology to
understand integrated ecological systems.
2. Students will better understand fundamental principles of ecology by examining how
these principles are manifest in the different terrestrial biomes of the world.
3. Students will be able to draw on these general principles and knowledge of terrestrial
biomes to better tailor conservation and management strategies to local ecosystems.
4. Students will transition from ways of thinking and ecological knowledge typical of
advanced undergraduate students to those expected for beginning graduate students.
5. Students will demonstrate outcomes 1-4 in three examinations and in a final written
project.
Schedule
Date
Topic and Tentative Reading
Week 1: Introduction
Jan 8 Class Orientation
Evaluation of Current Knowledge
Jan 10 Project 1: Conceptual Models assigned
Virtual Field Trip – Temperate Rain Forests
Week 2: Conceptual Models of Ecological Systems
Chapin, III, F. Stuart, Matson, Pamela A., Vitousek, Peter M. 2011. Principles of
Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Springer, New York. Chapter 1.
Introduction, pgs 3-12.25, 14-17.5, 21.5-22.
Pickett, S.T.A., J. Kolasa, C.G. Jones. 2007. Ecological Understanding: The
Nature of Theory and the Theory of Nature. Elsevier, Boston. Chapter 1
Integration in Ecology, pgs 3-18.25, 26.5-32.
2
Jan 13 Conceptual Models of Ecological Systems I
Jan 15 Conceptual Models of Ecological Systems II
Jan 17 Project 1 due
Virtual Field Trip – Montane Temperate Forest
Week 3: Terrestrial forest biomes of the world
Chapin, III, F. Stuart, Matson, Pamela A., Vitousek, Peter M. 2011. Principles of
Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Springer, New York. Chapter 2. Earth’s
climate system, pgs 23-26, 30-35.5, 38-41.5, 50.5-59.75.
Jan 20 No Class, Martin Luther King Holiday
Jan 22 Terrestrial forest biomes of the world I
Jan 24 Project 2 due
Terrestrial forest biomes of the world II
Week 4: Primary productivity: controls, patterns, consequences
Chapin, III, F. Stuart, Matson, Pamela A., Vitousek, Peter M. 2011. Principles of
Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Springer, New York. Chapter 5. Carbon
inputs to ecosystems, pgs 123-128, 140-147.
Jan 27 Lecture I
Jan 29 Lecture II
Jan 31 Project 3 due
Virtual Field Trip – African Savanna
Week 5: Primary productivity: comparison among biomes
Running, S. W., R. R. Nemani, F. A. Heinsch, Z. Zhao, M. Reeves, and H.
Hashimoto. 2004. A continuous satellite derived measure of global
terrestrial primary production. BioScience 54:547–560. Read pgs: 547-548
(omit Relating NDVI, APAR…), 550-559.
Huston, M. A., and S. Wolverton. 2009. The global distribution of net primary
production: resolving the paradox. Ecological Monographs. 79(3), 2009,
pp. 343–377. Read pgs: 343-343 (Introduction); 346 (Patterns of
Terrestrial NPP and Nutrients – 350 (Omit Addressing the Paradox); 351
(Direct Measurements of NPP in Forest Ecosystems) – 353; 368-369.
Chapin et al. 2011. Chapter 5 Pgs. 153-154. Chapter 6. Pgs. 169.5–172.25,
177.5–180.5.
Feb 3 Lecture I
3
Feb 5 Lecture II
Feb 7 Exam I
Week 6: Home range size and body size
Harestad, A. S., and F. L. Bunnell. 1979. Home range and body weight-A
reevaluation. Ecology 60:389-402.
Herfindal, I., J. D. C. Linnell, J. Odden, E. B. Nilsen, and R. Andersen. 2005.
Prey density, environmental productivity and home-range size in the
Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Journal of Zoology 265: 63–71.
Nilsen, E. B., I. Herfindal, J. D. C. Linnell. 2005. Can intra-specific variation in
carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of
environmental productivity? Ecoscience 12:68-75.
Feb 10 Lecture I
Feb 12 Lecture II
Feb 14 Project 4 due
Virtual Field Trip – Temperate Deciduous Forest
Week 7: Herbivore abundance and richness
Oiff, H., M. E. Richie, and H. H. T. Prins. 2002. Global environmental controls
of diversity in large herbivores. Nature 415:901-904.
Feb 17 No Class, Presidents’ Day Holiday
Feb 19 Lecture I
Feb 21 Project 5 due
Week 8: Habitat complexity: controls, patterns, consequences
Chapin, III, F. Stuart, Matson, Pamela A., Vitousek, Peter M. 2011. Principles of
Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Springer, New York. Chapter 13.
Landscape heterogeneity and ecosystem dynamics, pgs 369-372.
Brokaw, N. and R. Lent. 1999. Vertical structure. Pgs. 373-300 in M.L. Hunter,
ed., Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge University
Press.
Feb 24 Lecture I
Feb 26 Lecture II
Feb 28 Project 6 due
Virtual Field Trip – Boreal Forest
4
Week 9: Habitat complexity: Comparison among biomes – Student lead discussion.
Verschuyl, J.P., A.J. Hansen, D.B. McWethy, R. Sallabanks, R.L. Hutto. 2008.
Is the effect of forest structure on bird diversity modified by forest
productivity? Ecological Applications 18(5), 1155-1170.
Hansen, A. J., L. Baril, J. Watts, F. Kasmer, T. Ipolyi, R. Winton. In Prep.
Towards generality in fragmentation theory: Does ecosystem biomass
predict edge effects? Forest Ecology and Management.
Mar 3 Lecture I
Mar 5 Lecture II
Mar 7 No Class
Spring Break Week
Mar 10-14
Spring Break
Week 10: Community diversity: controls, patterns, consequences, comparisons among biomes
Gaston, K. J. 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220–227.
Mar17 Lecture I
Mar 19 Lecture II
Mar 21 Exam II
Week 11: Community diversity: Comparisons among biomes
Cardinale BJ, Hillebrand H, Harpole WS, Gross K, Ptacnik R. 2009. Separating
the influence of resource ‘availability’ from resource ‘imbalance’ on
productivity–diversity relationships. Ecology Letters 12: 475–487.
Mar 24 Lecture I
Mar 26 Lecture II
Mar 28
Virtual Field Trip – Tropical Rain Forest
Week 12 Climate change: controls, patterns, consequences
McCarthy, J.J. 2009. Reflections on: our planet and its life, origins, and futures.
Science 326:1646-1655.
Mar 31 Lecture I
Apr 2 Lecture II
5
Apr 4 Project 7 due
Virtual Field Trip – Aquatic fluvial systems
Week 13 Spatial Variation in Climate Change and Ecosystem Sensitivity: Implications for
Management
Keane, R.E., P.F. Hessburg, P.B. Landres, F.J. Swanson. 2009. The use of historical
range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and
Management 258:1025-1037.
Hobbs, R.J., Cole, D.N., Yung, L., et al., 2010. Guiding concepts for park and wilderness
stewardship in an era of global environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 8:483-490.
Caro, T., J. Darwin, T. Forrester, C. Ledoux-Bloom, C. Wells. 2011. Conservation in
the Anthropocene. Conservation Biology
Apr 7 Lecture I
Apr 9 Lecture II
Apr 11 Project 8 due
Virtual Field Trip – Aquatic fluvial systems
Week 14 Human land use
Mustard, J.F., R.S. DeFries, T. Fisher, E. Moran. 2004. Land-use and land-cover
change pathways and impacts. Pgs 411-429 in G. Gutman et al. eds. Land
Change Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.
Luck, G.W. 2007. The relationships between net primary productivity, human
population density and species conservation. Journal of Biogeography (J.
Biogeogr.) (2007) 34, 201–212.
Apr 14 Lecture I
Apr 16 Lecture II – Be prepared to discuss Luck 2007
Apr 18 No Class, University Day
Week 15 Synthesis: Grouping Biomes based on ecological properties
Hansen A.J. In Review. Ecosystem energy as a framework for prioritizing
conservation vulnerabilities and management strategies. Pgs 1-36
Apr 21 Lecture I
Apr 23 Lecture II
Apr 25 Review for final; Student evaluation of class
Finals Week
Apr 29 Comprehensive Final 8:00-9:50 am
6
Tentative Student Projects
Project 1: Conceptual Models of Ecological Systems (Week 2: Assigned Jan 10, Due Jan 17)
Think back on the ecology and environmental science courses that you have taken at
MSU and how the content of those courses fits into Figure 1.6, page 28 of Pickett et al.
2007 (also on page 2 of this handout). Write the title of each course adjacent to the level
of the hierarchy where it best fits.
Answer the following questions (1pg typed single-spaced)
1.
How well did the courses that you have taken at MSU help you to integrate
among the levels of organization identified in the Picket et al. 2007 diagram?
2.
Identify an area of specialization or career that you are interested in pursuing.
How would the ability to integrate among levels of ecological organization help you in
this career?
Project 2: Earth’s Climate System (Week 3: Assigned Jan 17, Due Jan 24)
1.
Chose a biome type or vegetation community in a place that you are familiar with
and diagram, (in no more than 3 separate diagrams that can fit on one page), a conceptual
model of the most important aspects of earth’s climate system to that biome type and
place. Think about seasonality and why your chosen location has the temperature and
precipitation profile that it does (i.e. why do we find conifer forests on mountains in SW
MT?). Use figures from the reading like 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.13 and others that you have
seen in class for inspiration.
a.
Please do not choose a place that is heavily human modified.
Project 3: Primary Productivity in GYE (Week 3: Assigned Jan 24, Due Jan 31)
Please answer the following questions in no more than 1 typed page:
1.
How do you expect annual GPP in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to change
in the future under increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and warming
temperatures throughout the year?
a.
Explain and defend your answer.
Project 4: Home Range and Body Size (Week 6: Assigned Feb 7, Due Feb 14)
Please answer the following question in no more than 1 typed page:
1.
Use the relationship(s) presented in the readings and the information provided
below to predict the total historical carrying capacity of bison on the Montana Great
Plains in the absence of human intervention. Does this seem like a reasonable prediction?
How confident are you in this answer?
Show your work and refer to specific equations/passages in the assigned reading to
defend your answer.
Project 5: Herbivore abundance and richness (Week 7: Assigned Feb 14, Due Feb 21)
A large ranch in Australia has been donated to environmental conservation interests for
the restoration of native large herbivores. However, it is unknown which large herbivores
lived there historically and therefore should be included in the restoration effort. Because
7
the reintroduction of each species is expensive, the conservation organization is soliciting
grant proposals to study the ranch to help them figure out which and how many native
herbivores could be supported. They have a relatively small amount of money for this
study and want specific recommendations without having to hire a habitat expert for each
species of interest.
Write a one-page single-spaced proposed project that describes the current state of
knowledge in this field, data and information to be collected and expected outcomes of
your study. Expected outcomes should include a discussion of what kinds of
recommendations you would provide and how much confidence you would place in these
conclusions. Remember, you are competing for funding so make a strong case that you
are knowledgeable on the subject and that their limited resources would be well-spent on
your project.
Project 6: Habitat complexity: controls, patterns, consequences (Week 8: Assigned Feb 21,
Due Feb 28)
1.
What are the major natural and human caused sources of spatial heterogeneity?
2.
Use one real-world example to explain how landscape patches interact with each
other through the exchange of water, matter or energy?
Project 7: Climate Change (Week 12: Assigned Mar 28, Due Apr 4)
Please answer the following questions in no more than 1 typed page:
1.
In the Hansen et al. reading, some parks and their surroundings (ROMO for
example) are projected to undergo considerable climate change and associated vegetation
biome change while others (GRSM for example) are projected to undergo considerable
climate change without much vegetation change. How do you explain this in terms of the
relationship between plants and climate?
2.
The assigned Hansen et al. reading presents active management in US National
Parks in the face of global change as unproblematic. And yet the legislated mission of the
National Park Service as outlined in the Organic Act states: “The National Park Service
preserves unimparied the natural and cultural resources and values the national park
system for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of future generations…” and many
within the agency have interpreted this to mean eliminating the direct effects of human
tampering to the greatest extent possible in order to preserve naturalness. Only in a
relatively few cases that were very nationally politically popular (gray wolf
reintroduction in Yellowstone for example), has active management in parks been
undertaken. Chose a side, either active management, or minimize human tampering, as a
guiding principle for US National Park Service management policy and both construct an
argument supporting your stance for this written assignment and come to class prepared
to defend your point of view.
Project 8: Management under Climate Change (Week 13: Assigned Apr 4, Due Apr 11)
TBD
8
Virtual Field Trips
Jan 10. Temperate Rain Forests – Andy
Jan 17. Montane Temperate Forest - Katie
Jan 31. African Savanna – Student group 1
Feb 14. Temperate Deciduous Forest – Student group 2
Feb 28. Boreal Forest – Student group 3
Mar 28. Tropical Rain Forest – Student group 4
Apr 4. Aquatic Fluvial Systems – Student group 5
9