Novel ecosystems are human-built, modified, or engineeredniches of theAnthropocene. They exist in places that have been altered in structure and function by human agency. Novelecosystems are part of thehumanenvironment andniche (includingurban,suburban, andrural), they lack natural analogs, and they have extended an influence that has converted more than three-quarters of wild Earth[citation needed]. These anthropogenicbiomes include technoecosystems that are fuelled by powerfulenergy sources (fossil and nuclear) including ecosystems populated with technodiversity, such as roads and unique combinations of soils calledtechnosols.Vegetation associations on old buildings or along field boundary stone walls in old agriculturallandscapes are examples of sites where research into novelecosystem ecology is developing.
Human society has transformed the planet to such an extent that we may have ushered in a new epoch known as theanthropocene. The ecological niche of the anthropocene contains entirely novel ecosystems that include technosols, technodiversity,anthromes, and thetechnosphere. These terms describe the human ecological phenomena marking this unique turn in the evolution of Earth's history.[1][2][3][4][5] Thetotal human ecosystem (or anthrome) describes the relationship of the industrial technosphere to theecosphere.
Technoecosystems interface with natural life-supporting ecosystems in competitive and parasitic ways.[1][6][7]Odum (2001)[8] attributes this term to a 1982 publication by Zev Naveh:[5] "Current urban-industrial society not only impacts natural life-support ecosystems, but also has created entirely new arrangements that we can call techno-ecosystems, a term believed to be first suggested by Zev Neveh (1982). These new systems involve new, powerful energy sources (fossil and atomic fuels), technology, money, and cities that have little or no parallels in nature."[8]: 137 The term technoecosystem, however, appears earliest in print in a 1976 technical report[9] and also appears in a book chapter (see[10] in Lamberton and Thomas (1982) written byKenneth E. Boulding).[11]
A novel ecosystem is one that has been heavily influenced by humans but is not under human management. A working tree plantation doesn't qualify; one abandoned decades ago would.
Novel ecosystems "differ in composition and/or function from present and past systems".[13] Novel ecosystems are the hallmark of the recently proposed anthropocene epoch. They have no natural analogs due to human alterations on global climate systems, invasive species, a global mass extinction, and disruption of the globalnitrogen cycle.[13][14][15][16] Novel ecosystems are creating many different kinds of dilemmas for terrestrial[17] and marine[18]conservation biologists. On a more local scale, abandoned lots, agricultural land, old buildings, field boundary stone walls or residential gardens provide study sites on the history and dynamics of ecology in novel ecosystems.[12][19][20][21]
Anthropogenic biomes tell a completely different story, one of “human systems, with natural ecosystems embedded within them”. This is no minor change in the story we tell our children and each other. Yet it is necessary for sustainable management of the biosphere in the 21st century.[22]: 445
Ellis (2008)[22] identifies twenty-one different kinds of anthropogenic biomes that sort into the following groups: 1) dense settlements, 2) villages, 3) croplands, 4) rangeland, 5) forested, and 6) wildlands. These anthropogenic biomes (or anthromes for short) create the technosphere that surrounds us and are populated with diverse technologies (or technodiversity for short). Within these anthromes the human species (one species out of billions) appropriates 23.8% of the global net primary production. "This is a remarkable impact on the biosphere caused by just one species."[23]
The technosphere is the part of the environment on Earth where technodiversity extends its influence into the biosphere.[4][5][28] "For the development of suitablerestoration strategies, a clear distinction has to be made between different functional classes of natural and cultural solar-powered biosphere and fossil-powered technosphere landscapes, according to their inputs and throughputs of energy and materials, their organisms, their control by natural or human information, their internalself-organization and their regenerative capacities."[29] The weight of Earth's technosphere has been suggested to be 30 trillion tons, a mass greater than 50 kilos for every square metre of the planet's surface.[30]
"Bio-agro- and techno-ecotopes are spatially integrated in larger, regional landscape units, but they are not structurally and functionally integrated in the ecosphere. Because of the adverse impacts of the latter and the great human pressures on bio-ecotopes, they are even antagonistically related and therefore cannot function together as a coherent, sustainable ecological system."[29]: 136
Technosols are a new form of ground group in theWorld Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB).[31] Technosols are "mainly characterised by anthropogenic parent material of organic and mineral nature and which origin can be either natural or technogenic."[32]: 537
^abStairs, D. (1997). "Biophilia and technophilia: Examining the nature/culture split in design theory".Design Issues.13 (3):37–44.doi:10.2307/1511939.JSTOR1511939.
^Laberton, M. S.; Thomas, M., eds. (1983). "Technology in the evolutionary process.".The trouble with technology. Explorations in the process of technological change. London: Frances Pinter. p. 224.ISBN978-0-312-81985-9.
^Rogers, Andrew M.; Chown, Steven L. (2014-01-01). "Novel ecosystems support substantial avian assemblages: the case of invasive alien Acacia thickets".Diversity and Distributions.20 (1):34–45.doi:10.1111/ddi.12123.ISSN1472-4642.S2CID85080080.
^Georgy S. Levit: The Biosphere and the Noosphere Theories of V. I. Vernadsky and P. Teilhard de Chardin: A Methodological Essay. International Archives on the History of Science/Archives Internationales D'Histoire des Sciences, 50 (144) - 2000: S. 160-176"Archived copy"(PDF). Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 2005-05-17. Retrieved2005-05-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^abcNaveh, Z. (2004). "Ecological and cultural landscape restoration and the cultural evolution towards a post-industrial symbiosis between human society and nature".Restoration Ecology.6 (2):135–143.doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.1998.00624.x.S2CID86839008.
^FOA (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2006), "World reference base for soil resources 2006. A framework for international classification, correlation and communication",World Soil Resour Rep,132 (2nd ed.): 145
^Monserie, M.; Watteau, F.; Villemin, G.; Ouvrard, S.; Morel, J. (2009). "Technosol genesis: identification of organo-mineral associations in a young Technosol derived from coking plant waste materials".J Soils Sediments.9 (6):537–546.doi:10.1007/s11368-009-0084-y.S2CID97518979.
^Cooper, B. (2000). "Modelling research and development: How do firms solve design problems?".Journal of Evolutionary Economics.10 (4):395–413.doi:10.1007/s001910000040.S2CID154126859.
^Sorensen, K. H.; Williams, R., eds. (2002).Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. p. 404.ISBN978-1-84064-649-8.
^Sandén, B. A.; Azar, C (2005). "Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets—economy wide versus technology specific approaches".Energy Policy.33 (12):1557–1576.doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.012.
^Williams, R.; Sörensen, K. H., eds. (2002). "The cultural shaping of technologies and the politics of technodiversity.".Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces & Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. pp. 173–194.ISBN978-1-84064-649-8.
