F:\ALCES\Vol_38\PAGEMA~1\3804.PDF ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 VAN DYKE ET AL. – ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE 5 5 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE: CREATING A COHERENT CONCEPT WITH FUNCTIONAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Fred Van Dyke1, Brian Darby2, Sarah E. Van Kley3, Jamie D. Schmeling4, and Nathan R. DeJager5 1Department of Biology, Armending Hall, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA; 2Department of Earth, Ecological, and Environmental Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606 , USA; 3Department of Botany and Microbiology, George Lynn Cross Hall, Van Vleet Oval, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0245, USA; 4529 Douglas Avenue, Apartment 16, Holland, MI 49424-2701 USA; 5Department of Biology, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN 55812, USA ABSTRACT: Ecosystem management is a popular but poorly defined concept in conservation biology. Current vague, non-operational definitions provoke criticism of the concept and under- mine credibility of its associated principles. We propose a definition of ecosystem management that emphasizes essential qualities of the concept rather than its accidental associations or properties, and that explains functional and operational attributes of ecosystem management rather than its descriptive characteristics. Based on these criteria, we offer a definition of ecosystem management as “a pattern of prescribed, goal-oriented environmental manipulations that: (1) treat a specified ecological system of identifiable boundaries as the fundamental unit to be managed; (2) has, as its desired outcome, the achievement of a state or collection of states in the ecosystem such that historical components, structure, function, products, and services of the ecosystem persist within biologically normal ranges and with normal rates of change; (3) uses naturally occurring, landscape- scale processes as the primary means of management; and (4) determines management objectives through cooperative decision-making of individuals and groups who reside in, administer, and/or have vested interests in the state of the ecosystem”. Achieving workable ecosystem management is currently hindered by the lack of a unified vision and system of values for ecosystems, the absence of permanent inter-agency bodies with authority to manage ecosystems across multiple jurisdic- tions, and the lack of administrative mechanisms for the translation of ecosystem research findings into ecosystem management policies. We propose strategies to overcome these obstacles and examine moose (Alces alces) as an example of a species that is both important to ecosystem management and may benefit from it. ALCES VOL. 38: 55-72 (2002) Key words: Alces alces, ecosystem management, implementation, test case The concept of ecosystems dates to early in the twentieth century (Tansley 1935), but the concept of managing ecosys- tems is more recent. Of all modern efforts in the management and conservation of natural resources, none has proven more elusive in definition or more controversial in implementation than “ecosystem manage- ment.” Speaking of the idea with uncon- cealed disdain, conservationist Michael Bean wrote, “rarely has a concept gone so di- rectly from obscurity to meaninglessness without any intervening period of coher- ence” (Bean 1997). Less cynically, but not less optimistically, Berry et al (1998) wrote, “No single operational definition of ecosys- tem management exists, although its basic principles are understood.” In the United States, 18 federal agen- cies have adopted or are considering adop- tion of programs based on ecosystem man- agement concepts (Congressional Research ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE – VAN DYKE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 5 6 Service 1994, Christensen et al. 1996, Haeuber 1996, Haeuber and Franklin 1996, Prato 1999). Representatives of 5 of these federal agencies participated in a signing of a joint agreement to proceed with ecosys- tem management at the Ecological Stew- ardship Workshop held in Tucson, Arizona in 1995 (Czech and Krausman1997). To support such efforts, a wealth of attempted definitions of ecosystem management ex- ists, many written by the agencies them- selves (Table 1). However, despite the intensity of effort and variety of expression, current ecosystem management has been described as “a loose collection of agency specific concept papers, policy guidance documents, and potential – or only partially implemented – administrative changes” (Haeuber 1996). While some professionals view the con- cept of ecosystem management as an im- portant paradigm shift, others see it is as the opposite, a vacuous phrase “desperately seeking a paradigm” (Lackey 1998). Vari- ous positions are: (1) that ecosystem man- agement is not a new paradigm at all (Slocombe 1993, Taylor 1993, Czech 1995, Haeuber 1996); (2) that it is what managers have been doing all along (Irland 1994, More 1996, Berry et al. 1998); (3) that it is a dressed-up version of the U. S. Forest Service’s old “multiple use” management (Czech and Krausman 1997); (4) that it should be called “public lands management because public lands are ecosystems” (Czech 1995); (5) that it is the same as conservation because it has the same goal and therefore should be renamed “ecosys- tem conservation” (Czech 1995); (6) that it is a conspiracy to reduce the extractive use of natural resources and expel private citi- zens from public lands (Christensen et al. 1996); and (7) that Aldo Leopold thought of it first (Czech 1995, Knight 1995, Grumbine 1998). Vague, non-distinctive definitions of ecosystem management encourage and jus- tify criticisms of the concept (Czech 1995). If we follow a classical authority such as Aristotle, a useful definition of ecosystem management would be one that expresses the essence or nature of the entity and not merely its accidental properties (Abelson 1967, More 1996). The ideal definition would be one that includes “all instances and only those instances” of the category we define, a definition specifying both the essence of ecosystem management and its boundaries. Equipped with such a defini- tion, we would be able to determine imme- diately if something is or is not ecosystem management (More 1996). But to make progress in our understanding we must de- termine the essence or distinctive nature of ecosystem management compared to other management strategies. Valuable as an operational definition of ecosystem management might be, the defi- nition alone is insufficient. Mechanisms to enforce ecosystem management practices, and to overcome inherent and systemic obstacles to an ecosystem management approach must be constructed. In addition, the concept and practice of ecosystem management also raise legitimate concerns for those with vested interests in a particu- lar species or resource. Specifically, is ecosystem management such a broad con- cept that it will prove insensitive to the values of individual species, such as moose (Alces alces)? For example, Crichton et al. (1998) warn that “moose management is not counter to conservation biology or most other administrative program orientations (such as ecosystem or habitat manage- ment), [however] a danger exists to the resource – moose – if management at- tempts to be too inclusive and if readjust- ment occurs at the sacrifice or compromise of programs that have been the mainstay of professional management all along.” Thus, to be effective, ecosystem management ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 VAN DYKE ET AL. – ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE 5 7 Table 1. Definitions of “ecosystem management” in 10 federal agencies in the United States (Congressional Research Service 1994). Agency Definition Department of Agriculture The integration of ecological principles and social factors t o m a n a g e e c o s y s t e m s t o s a f e g u a r d e c o l o g i c a l sustainability, biodiversity and productivity. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Activities that seek to restore and maintain the health, Atmospheric Administration integrity, and functional values of natural ecosystems that are the cornerstone of productive, sustainable economics. Department of Defense The identification of target areas, including Department of Defense lands, and the implementation of a “holistic ap- proach" instead of a “species-by-species approach” in order to enhance biodiversity. Department of Energy A consensual process, based on the best available science that specifically includes human interactions and manage- ment; and uses natural instead of political boundaries in order to restore and enhance environmental quality. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management The integration of ecological, economic, and social princi- ples to manage biological and physical systems in a manner safeguarding the long-term ecological sustainability, natu- ral diversity, and productivity of the landscape. Fish and Wildlife Service Protecting or restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all compo- nents are interrelated. National Park Service A philosophical approach that respects all living things and seeks to sustain natural processes and the dignity of all species and to ensure that common interests flourish. U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem management emphasizes natural boundaries, s u c h a s w a t e r s h e d s , b i o l o g i c a l c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d physiographic provinces, and bases resource management decisions on an integrated scientific understanding of how the whole ecosystem works. Environmental Protection Agency To maintain overall ecological integrity of the environment while ensuring that ecosystem outputs meet human needs on a sustainable level. National Science Foundation An integrative approach to the maintenance of land and water resources as functional habitat for an array of organ- isms and the provision of goods and services to society. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE – VAN DYKE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 5 8 must demonstrate that it is not only an operational concept, but that it can success- fully meet needs of individual species of special importance in ecosystem function or of particular value to individual stakeholder groups. The role of individual species in ecosystem management must be stressed because some species are “drivers” and some are “passengers” in ecosystem proc- esses. The drivers are active determinants of the characteristics of the ecosystem in which they live because of ecological func- tions that they perform in the system. The passengers “ride along” on the effects cre- ated by the drivers. Moose are unquestion- ably “driver” species, or, in more familiar terms, “keystone” species, in every ecosys- tem in which they have been carefully stud- ied. They have disproportionate effects on community or ecosystem processes and, as a result, disproportionately affect the abun- dance of other plant and animal species, as well as habitat composition in the land- scape. We evaluate the problems of defin- ing ecosystem management operationally, suggest mechanisms for its implementation and offer moose as a “test case” regarding its effects on an individual species. PARADIGM DEVELOPMENT OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Since the 1960s, managers of public lands and academics in applied sciences like wildlife management, range manage- ment, and forestry have written about “eco- system concepts in management” (Major 1969; Van Dyne 1969; Wagner 1969, 1977). By the 1970s, the term “ecosystem man- agement” was in common use (Czech and Krausman 1997). However, authors from this period almost always used such terms to describe either the management of populations as commodities or the manipu- lation of processes, structures, and func- tions of ecosystems in order to produce desired levels of animal populations or plant biomass (Major 1969; Wagner 1969, 1977). If this is all that “ecosystem manage- ment” means, then the concept would cer- tainly not meet the criteria for a scientific paradigm, nor would it represent a genuine “paradigm shift” to any new concepts or ideas. Ultimately, paradigms come to in- corporate and express the values, theories, methods, and tools that a professional com- munity prescribes and believes to achieve a desired condition (Kuhn 1970, Czech 1995). Although the modern concept of ecosystem management still struggles with the problem of poor definition, its connotative attributes are nevertheless very different from con- cepts about “ecosystems and management” that were expressed in the 1960s and 1970s. Today the increasing adoption of what is called “ecosystem management” does rep- resent a genuine transfer of popular and professional loyalty from one group of ideas and values to another. This shift reflects a transfer of loyalty from the traditional “re- source management” paradigm to values associated with ecosystem management. Distinctions of the Ecosystem Manage- ment Paradigm In the United States, major federal agen- cies have always had “jurisdiction” over ecosystems, but they have, until recently, never attempted to manage their jurisdic- tions “as ecosystems”. Governed by a paradigm of resource management (RM), the entity of value was a particular “re- source,” either an individual species or an abiotic component of the system, such as water, soil, or a mineral. The resource was seen as a commodity and its value was “use.” Biologically, this meant that, in a RM paradigm, the value units of management were the species or abiotic components and the spatial units of management were the sites on which they occurred. The outcome of RM at the biological level is single- species management, either as commodi- ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 VAN DYKE ET AL. – ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE 5 9 ties (harvestable species of plants and ani- mals) or as units of rarity to be preserved (endangered species). In RM, the mecha- nisms of management are site-specific ac- tivities performed by humans, usually through direct intervention. Time scales are rela- tively short-term, and jurisdictional author- ity and management decisions are within the boundaries of individual agencies. The long-term goal is optimal, renewable, and sustainable production of natural resources as commodities for multiple uses, and, within this larger aim, individual management ob- jectives are set and determined by demand for commodities that the system can supply. Ecosystem management has emerged as a meaningful alternative to the RM para- digm and to more local, site specific man- agement approaches, largely through 4 re- cent scientific and technical achievements: (1) the estimation of minimum viable populations (MVPs) and population viability analysis (PVA), leading to the scientific consensus that small populations of indi- viduals in isolated reserves will not persist in the long term; (2) the development of re- mote sensing data collection techniques and geographic information systems (GIS), which make the collection and analysis of landscape-scale data manageable; (3) in- creasing scale and complexity of environ- mental problems and associated threats that frustrate conservation efforts for individual species and habitats at local scales; and (4) a shift in public attitudes away from valuing the commodities produced by ecosystems for human use to valuing experience and appreciation of the functioning ecosystem itself. Thus, ecosystem management owes its emergence not only to shifting public values, but also to increased technical op- portunity. Entity of value and sustainability. _ The ecosystem management (EM) paradigm has gained support because of its ability to deal with changing biological and sociopolitical structures that frustrate the RM paradigm. What gives the EM paradigm this advan- tage is a fundamental shift in the entity of value. In contrast to a former emphasis on the value of resources as commodities, EM assumes that the entity of value is the ecosystem itself. That is, the ecosystem, on its own, is perceived as an object worthy of respect and admiration, valued for its beauty, complexity, history, and cultural significance. Further, what is valued in the EM paradigm is a state or collection of states of the ecosystem that permit long-term delivery of overall ecosystem services, the stability and persistence of ecosystem components (resi- dent populations and communities), and the continuing, long-term stability of transfers of matter and energy within the system. The purpose of achieving such a state is to ensure the persistence of the ecosystem and its functions. Specific management goals of how much can be taken from or used in the system are set by the capacity of the system to deliver the desired goods and services, not by the demand for the goods and services. The value of the ecosystem then rightfully entails human obligation to see that the ecosystem persists, and, al- though goods and services may be outputs of the ecosystem, the ultimate goal is the sustainability of the system, not the deliverability of resource commodities. Biodiversity. _ In the EM paradigm, the significance of individual elements of the ecosystem, whether communities, habitats, species, or abiotic features of climate, land- scape, topography, soil, water, or elements are understood and determined in relation to their role in the stability and functioning of the system. All such components may have roles in the ongoing structure and function of the system, and as such they are consid- ered and conserved at appropriate levels in management. Thus, EM is more attractive ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE – VAN DYKE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 6 0 to current managers and conservationists than RM. Faced with continued increases in endangered and threatened species, man- agers are learning that management of eco- systems and landscapes often represents the only way to save both endangered spe- cies and overall biodiversity (Wilson 1986, Franklin 1993), as well as a means to pre- serve rare or poorly known habitats and ecological subsystems (Franklin 1993). Management mechanisms and deci- sions. — In EM, the mechanisms of man- agement are primarily through identifica- tion and manipulation of landscape-scale processes. Management time scales are long-range, and units of management are large areas that may not fall within the jurisdiction of a single agency or govern- ment control, but may include jurisdictions of various levels of government as well as private ownership. Thus, management de- cisions must incorporate decision-making strategies that involve all agencies with jurisdiction over lands or processes in the ecosystem, private landowners within or adjacent to the system who depend on out- puts and services from the system, and non- residents who have an interest in the state of the system. With these concepts in mind, we offer a definition that distinguishes ecosystem man- agement from other types of land and re- source management. We propose that eco- system management be defined as “a pat- tern of prescribed, goal-oriented environ- mental manipulations that: (1) treat a speci- fied ecological system as the fundamental unit to be managed; (2) has, as its desired outcome, the achievement of a state or a collection of states in the ecosystem such that historical components, structure, func- tion, products, and services of the ecosys- tem will persist within biological and histori- cal ranges and rates of change over long time periods; (3) uses naturally occurring, landscape-scale processes as the primary means of achieving management objectives; and (4) determine management objectives through cooperative decision-making of in- dividuals and groups who reside in, admin- ister, and/or have vested interests in the state of the ecosystem”. Grumbine’s 10 themes of ecosystem management (Grumbine 1994), the ESAs 8 primary characteristics of ecosystem man- agement (Christensen et al. 1996), and More’s (1996) 5 dimensions of ecosystem management can be seen as parallel ex- pressions of similar values and concepts. These dimensions include; (1) the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem; (2) the maintenance of viable populations of all native species; (3) the representation of native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation within protected areas; (4) management through ecological proc- esses; and (5) the accommodation of hu- man use and occupancy within manage- ment constraints. The development of ecosystem man- agement has consistently included and stressed 3 premises. First, the ecosystem, rather than individual organisms, populations, species, or habitats, is considered the ap- propriate management unit. Second, em- phasis is placed on the development and use of adaptive management models, which treat the ecosystem as the subject of study and research, and treat management activities as experimental and uncertain. This means that in ecosystem management, manage- ment decisions represent hypotheses about how ecosystems work. Management ac- tions that implement such decisions are therefore to be viewed as experimental tests of such hypotheses, and the outcomes of such management actions represent the results of these tests. Thus, in ecosystem management, management decisions should carefully consider all reasonable alterna- tives. Management actions should, when- ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 VAN DYKE ET AL. – ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE 6 1 ever possible, follow careful experimental design, include environmental controls (un- treated sites or subjects), and be carefully monitored over time. The outcome of the management action should be viewed in terms of whether it supported or refuted the hypothesis of the management decision, and future decisions should be considered accordingly, under the full light of profes- sional scientific scrutiny and public account- ability. If the experimental design is sound, the results of the management action should be relatively unambiguous, but must still be interpreted stochastically (within a range of outcomes with differing probabilities), rather than as deterministic outcomes generated by simple cause-and-effect relationships. Finally, ecosystem management is charac- terized by processes in which those with vested interests in the health and services of the ecosystem (stakeholders) participate in management decisions. Defining the Value and Function of Eco- system Management More (1999) defined public parks (such as national parks or national forests) as “organizations of natural and social re- sources that have been set aside in the public domain to accomplish a function or set of functions. Generally these functions concern the preservation of a unique or …scarce resource in the service of the public good, both for present and future generations.” In the modern concept of ecosystem management, the ecosystem replaces the more limited concept of “park” as the entity of organization, but the need to define the function of the entity remains essential. For ecosystem management to succeed, managers must begin by defining explicitly what function or functions are to be accomplished by the ecosystem and its management. Specific functions will vary according to individual ecosystems. Most functions will require management for pro- vision of essential ecosystem services, in- cluding climate and water regulation, con- servation of native species, protection of interests of stakeholder groups, efficient use of ecosystem production that can be used as commodities, and long-term persist- ence of the ecosystem to ensure continu- ance of these services. A clear articulation of the function and values of ecosystem management is re- quired to develop a unified set of values and objectives with the public, other govern- ment agencies and legislative bodies, and w i t h s p e c i f i c s t a k e h o l d e r g r o u p s . Stakeholders are operationally defined as “persons or groups that have, or claim, ownership, rights, or interest” in the ecosys- tem and its management, past, present, or future (Clarkson 1995). Following values analysis, a management agency should sub- sequently conduct a “stakeholder analysis,” identifying various stakeholder groups and the nature of the vested interest of each in the management of the system (Stead and Stead 2000). Stakeholders generally claim interest, ownership, or rights (legal, moral, individual, or collective) in a system as a result of past transactions between them- selves and at least one of the managing agencies (Clarkson 1995). If managers can successfully define and articulate the func- tion of the ecosystem and its management in a manner that addresses the legitimate c l a i m s , r i g h t s , a n d o w n e r s h i p o f stakeholders, they can then evaluate ongo- ing and proposed management activities by objective guidelines. In turn, managers are then accountable for those guidelines. M a n a g i n g E c o s y s t e m C o m p o n e n t s , Structure, and Ecological Function Historically, a problem in managing eco- system components, such as species, at the ecosystem level has been the lack of a generally accepted classification system of what constitutes a fundamental biological ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE – VAN DYKE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 6 2 conservation unit in ecosystems. A first step is to categorize ecosystems at regional, coarse, intermediate, and local geographic scales (Fig. 1, Poiani et al. 2000). Once identified, ecosystem conservation requires identification and protection of focal eco- systems and the ecological processes that sustain them (Pickett et al. 1992, Meyer 1997). One methodology to meet these requirements is through the identification of “functional conservation areas,” defined as geographic domains that “maintain focal ecosystems, species, and supporting eco- logical processes within their ranges of vari- ability” over the long-term (100-500 years) (Fig. 2, Poiani et al. 2000). Three scales for functional conservation areas are recog- nized: sites, landscapes, and networks. Sites conserve a small number of ecosystems or species at scales below landscape levels, while landscapes conserve many ecosys- tems and species at scales below regional levels. Networks are integrated sets of sites and landscapes designed to protect regional scale species (Poiani et al. 2000). An ecosystem can be judged to be “func- tional” according to 4 criteria: (1) it pos- sesses the historic composition and struc- ture of the ecosystem and its species within a natural range of variability; (2) its domi- nant environmental regimes are controlled by natural processes; (3) it is sufficiently large to possess at least one minimum dy- namic area (50 times the size of the average disturbance patch) (Pickett and Thompson 1978); and (4) it is connected to other essential landscape elements and its spe- cies are free to move among those ele- ments. Managing Stakeholder Groups, Eco- system Jurisdiction and Political Proc- ess: The Obstacles to Ecosystem Man- agement In the United States, one of the inten- tions of the elaborate planning and complex procedural requirements inherent in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re- Fig. 1. A method of categorizing ecosystems at regional, coarse, intermediate, and local geographic scales. Modified from Poiani et al. (2000) - ©2001 American Institute of Biological Sciences. Coarse ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 VAN DYKE ET AL. – ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE 6 3 sources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 was to improve decision- making and reduce conflict over use of the nation’s forest and range resources. In fact, the opposite has occurred. The RPA has become an object of ridicule within and outside of government agencies because it mandates long-range assessment and plan- ning, but contains no funding mechanisms to achieve it (J. Kie, personal communica- tion). Forest planning under the NFMA has not fared much better. By 1990, 14 years after the passage of the NFMA, 92 of 94 completed forest plans were under appeal. Five were in court and one was declared illegal. Further, 332 active appeals were pending against these plans, brought by conservation groups, commodity interests, off-road vehicle enthusiasts, state and local governments, Native American tribes, and private citizens (Behan 1990). Such litiga- tion manifests, in part, the long and difficult process of achieving a consensus about values in ecosystem management. The NFMA directed the Forest Service toward an ecosystem management approach, and engagement in that process requires a long- term commitment to achieve lasting agree- ment over ecosystem values and manage- ment actions. However, the necessary conditions of public cooperation and trust remain unrealized. Such failures in public cooperation and trust will be a fatal obstacle to ecosystem management if they are allowed to persist. Successful ecosystem management will require the creation of permanent inter- agency committees, boards, and working groups in which all agencies and all primary stakeholders from the private sector are presented. Such bodies must then move the concept of ecosystem management from the “discussion agenda” (visions discussed or defined by individual agencies) to the “decision agenda” (ideas that are submitted for decisive agency action). We identify 3 obstacles that such groups must overcome to achieve functional ecosystem manage- ment and ultimately produce effective pro- cedures that translate ecosystem manage- ment into policy. Fig. 2. Definitions of functional sites, landscapes, and networks and their relationships to biodiversity at various spatial scales. Modified from Poiani et al. (2000). © 2001 American Institute of Biological Sciences. coarse, ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE – VAN DYKE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 6 4 The need for unified vision and values for ecosystems and ecosystem man- agement. — The resource management paradigm invested all decision making within the individual agency judged responsible for a particular resource, or for a particular land unit within the agency’s jurisdiction. In contrast, ecosystem management is actu- ally a management system of stakeholder groups and management agencies. There- fore stakeholders and agencies must have unifying values and purposes to participate constructively in managing ecosystems. The present reality is one of polarized, frag- mented groups of stakeholders and agen- cies with different and conflicting values and visions of ecosystems, leading to sepa- rate agendas that foster distrust and con- flict. For example, one research tool used to e v a l u a t e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f c o r p o r a t e stakeholders is the “survey inventory,” a list of up to 50 different issues important to stakeholders in corporate cultures (Clarkson 1995). In a personal interview or written response, stakeholders rank listed issues according to their perceived importance. Managers then use these responses as a first step to identify stakeholder interests, and begin to build value systems and man- agement strategies informed by these rankings. The rankings collected directly from the stakeholders not only better inform managers of stakeholder interests, but also help managers to distinguish between “so- cial issues” of ecosystem management (mat- ters of importance to society at large, often already regulated by existing laws and regu- lations) and “stakeholder issues” (matters of importance to particular groups, often unregulated and not addressed by existing laws and regulations). Tools such as survey inventories could help managing agencies and stakeholders to more clearly define and reach agreement on the management agencies’ “responsibili- ties to stakeholder groups”. If responsibili- ties for management are made explicit, they help to define what the prescribed out- comes of ecosystem management ought to be. If these responsibilities are fulfilled, agency-stakeholder relations grow in trust, move toward effective cooperation, and improve prospects for long-term success in ecosystem management. The performance of the agency can then be better evaluated by the stakeholders, and serve as a basis for discussion of future management strate- gies. The need for unified sources of infor- mation and analysis. — To cooperate effectively in ecosystem management, di- v e r s e a g e n c i e s n e e d a c o m m o n clearinghouse of information and analysis regarding ecosystem processes and their responses to management systems. How- ever, current information is dispersed among scientific literature, proceedings of profes- sional conferences, and agency reports. The information varies in quality, reliability, focus, format, and accessibility, and there are currently no uniformly accepted stand- ards for data collection among agencies. We propose that such a clearinghouse be created, with appropriate oversight by agen- cies with jurisdiction over the ecosystem, before a management plan be developed for any particular ecosystem. The need to translate research into policy — If ecosystem management is to have a basis in science and a foundation of professional credibility, it must have the means to smoothly translate reliable re- search findings into informed policy. This condition requires established and ongoing channels of communication and high levels of trust among researchers, managers, and lawmakers. Berry et al. (1998), for exam- ple, call for a radical restructuring of the ecosystem management effort. Their pro- ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 VAN DYKE ET AL. – ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE 6 5 posal includes: (1) a federal, legislative mandate to achieve ecosystem manage- ment in all federal land management agen- cies; (2) establishing regional “Boards of Ecosystem Management Research” with representatives of all major stakeholders; (3) a common information clearinghouse to set clear and consistent standards for eco- system research and serve as a single source for getting results of past studies; (4) an independent science oversight group, re- sponsible to the board and appointed inde- pendently of any one agency or interest group to provide direction and review of current research and management efforts; and (5) a Project Management Team re- sponsible to the Board that would collect research, development, and operational funds from agencies and stakeholder groups and allocate them to appropriate research efforts. The team would be advised of the merits of proposals and outcomes by out- side researchers through independent peer review. IMPLICATIONS OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT FOR MOOSE Currently, most jurisdictions with large moose populations manage moose as a fea- tured species because of recreation, aes- t h e t i c , a n d e c o n o m i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s (Thompson and Stewart 1998). As noted earlier, some have voiced concern that eco- system management represents such a broad approach that individual species, such as moose, might not be effectively managed (Crichton et al. 1998). In contrast, we suggest that moose populations may benefit from ecosystem management. Moose have an affinity for early successional vegetation that tends to increase under management that actively employs ecosystem processes such as fire and flooding. Moose also have high value among multiple stakeholder groups. Finally, moose are often associated with habitats of high species richness. We also explore the potentially negative effects of large predators on moose populations. These effects may increase under ecosys- tem management practices that encourage the persistence, and even growth, of such predator populations. Moose and Ecosystem Processes In both aquatic and terrestrial environ- ments, moose can exert profound influence on the plant species composition, habitat distribution, and nutrient cycling of ecosys- tems. For example, in northern boreal for- ests, moose prevent saplings of preferred species from growing into the tree canopy, resulting in a forest with fewer canopy trees and a well-developed understory of shrubs and herbs (McInnes et al. 1992). At light to moderate levels, browsing leads to increased production efficiencies (higher rates of pro- duction per biomass) in shrubs and saplings. Through browsing, moose also reduce the quantity and quality of litter and soil nutri- ents, driving a complex set of ecological interactions between browse, litter quality, and soil nutrients (McInnes et al 1992). Similar effects are seen in mixed decidu- ous-coniferous forests, where moose typi- cally browse preferentially on deciduous hardwoods. This pattern of feeding not only changes forest composition, but, more gen- erally, reduces nitrogen mineralization, ni- trogen inputs, and overall primary produc- tivity of the forest because the browsing reduces the quantity and quality of litter returned to the soil (Pastor et al. 1993). Moose, in conjunction with snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), also can reduce fine root production in plants as a result of their herbivory on aerial biomass (Ruess et al. 1998). In lakes and ponds, moose may consume up to 95% of submerged aquatic vegetation, particularly various species of pond lilies, which can trigger significant declines in such plant populations and in- duce major changes in plant species compo- ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND MOOSE – VAN DYKE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 38, 2002 6 6 sition in the pond (Belovsky 1981a). Habitat Relationships The intermediate disturbance hypoth- esis predicts that maximum species diver- sity, particularly plant species diversity, is most likely to occur in habitats experiencing intermediate or moderate levels of distur- bance (Loucks 1970, Connell 1978, Petraitis et al. 1989), because disturbance removes a subset of pre-existing species, making a portion of the area available for coloniza- tion. Too little disturbance reduces areas available for colonization, and too much eliminates too many pre-established spe- cies, creating a “species debt” that new colonist species cannot fill in a short time. Thus, ecosystem management must seek to incorporate both natural and prescribed patterns of environmental disturbance at intermediate levels to achieve its goal of enhancing the persistence of native species and the overall species richness of the eco- system. While the terms “intermediate” and “moderate” are not always well-de- fined, they are often used to refer either to the magnitude of the disturbance or to its frequency or both (Bendix 1997). On historic range, moose have typically occupied habitats associated with interme- diate levels of disturbance, specifically habi- tats where vegetation is dominated by rela- tively short-lived species that are adapted to disturbances of intermediate strength and frequency, such as fire and flooding. In south-central Montana, for example, Shiras moose (A. a. shirasi) preferred aspen (Populus tremuloides) habitats in all sea- sons compared to all other available habitat types Table 2, Van Dyke et al. 1995). Aspen is a short-lived deciduous tree whose presence in the surrounding landscape of a coniferous forest is strongly dependent on recurrent fire of intermediate frequency and magnitude. Fire does not automatically ensure prolific growth and regeneration, but, on suitable sites, mature aspen with sufficient pre-burn root biomass will pro- duce a strong suckering response with den- sities of up to 110,000 shoots per ha (Renkin Table 2. Seasonal habitat selection by 3 male (M) and 10 female (F) moose in the Fiddler and Fishtail Creek drainages, south-central Montana, 1989-93. Numbers indicate percentages. Symbols in parentheses indicate selection for (+), selection against (-), or no selection (0). P (P = probability that difference between use and availability is due to random variation)< 0.01 for all cases of selection and for differences between sexes, except where noted. After Van Dyke et al. (1995). Used by permission. Moose locations % Annual Cover type Available Winter Spring Summer Autumn M use F use Pattern Aspen 17.5 43.0 (+) 40.2 (+) 56.5 (+) 36.0 (+) 60.0 (+) 40.2 (+) M>F Shrub-dominated wetland 8.1 23.9 (+) 20.7 (+) 8.7 (0) 17.41 (0) 17.11 (0) 16.5 (+) M=F Lodgepole 55.0 21.8 (-) 20.7 (-) 17.4 (-) 31.1 (-) 12.6 (-) 25.4 (-) M