Reader TTS

ABSTRACT One of the twenty-first century’s greatest environmental challenges is to recover and restore species, habitats and ecosystems. The decision about how to initiate restoration is

best-informed by an understanding of the linkages between ecosystem components and, given these linkages, an appreciation of the consequences of choosing to recover one ecosystem component

before another. However, it remains difficult to predict how the sequence of species’ recoveries within food webs influences the speed and trajectory of restoration, and what that means for

human well-being. Here, we develop theory to consider the ecological and social implications of synchronous versus sequential (species-by-species) recovery in the context of exploited food

webs. A dynamical systems model demonstrates that synchronous recovery of predators and prey is almost always more efficient than sequential recovery. Compared with sequential recovery,

synchronous recovery can be twice as fast and produce transient fluctuations of much lower amplitude. A predator-first strategy is particularly slow because it counterproductively suppresses

prey recovery. An analysis of real-world predator–prey recoveries shows that synchronous and sequential recoveries are similarly common, suggesting that current practices are not ideal. We

highlight policy tools that can facilitate swift and steady recovery of ecosystem structure, function and associated services. Access through your institution Buy or subscribe This is a

preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value

online-access subscription $29.99 / 30 days cancel any time Learn more Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles $119.00 per year only $9.92 per issue

Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL

ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS SPATIAL MATCH–MISMATCH BETWEEN PREDATORS

AND PREY UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE Article 24 June 2024 PREDATOR MASS MORTALITY EVENTS RESTRUCTURE FOOD WEBS THROUGH TROPHIC DECOUPLING Article 17 January 2024 GLIMMERS OF HOPE IN LARGE CARNIVORE

RECOVERIES Article Open access 21 July 2022 REFERENCES * Burrows, M. T. et al. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. _Science_ 334, 652–655 (2011). Article  CAS

  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Loarie, S. R. et al. The velocity of climate change. _Nature_ 462, 1052–1055 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Corlett, R. T. Restoration,

reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 31, 453–462 (2016). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Neeson, T. M. et al. Enhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency

through spatial and temporal coordination. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 112, 6236–6241 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Wolkovich, E. M., Cook, B. I.,

McLauchlan, K. K. & Davies, T. J. Temporal ecology in the Anthropocene. _Ecol. Lett._ 17, 1365–1379 (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Suding, K. et al. Committing to

ecological restoration. _Science_ 348, 638–640 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Costello, C. et al. Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. _Proc. Natl

Acad. Sci. USA_ 113, 5125–5129 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Jones, H. P. & Schmitz, O. J. Rapid recovery of damaged ecosystems. _PLoS ONE_ 4, e5653

(2009). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Palmer, M. A. & Ruhl, J. Aligning restoration science and the law to sustain ecological infrastructure for the future. _Front.

Ecol. Environ._ 13, 512–519 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Perring, M. P. et al. Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades. _Ecosphere_ 6, art131

(2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. _Science_ 333, 301–306 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Pauly, D., Christensen, V.,

Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. & Torres F. Jr Fishing down marine food webs. _Science_ 279, 860–863 (1998). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Sethi, S. A., Branch, T. A. & Watson,

R. Global fishery development patterns are driven by profit but not trophic level. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 107, 12163–12167 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

* Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. _Science_ 343, 1241484 (2014). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Suding, K. N. Toward an era of

restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. _Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst._ 42, 465–487 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Wilen, J. & Brown, G. Jr Optimal

recovery paths for perturbations of trophic level bioeconomic systems. _J. Environ. Econ. Manag_. 13, 225–234 (1986). Article  Google Scholar  * Andersen, K. H. & Rice, J. C. Direct and

indirect community effects of rebuilding plans. _ICES J. Mar. Sci._ 67, 1980–1988 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * Frank, K. T., Petrie, B., Fisher, J. A. D. & Leggett, W. C. Transient

dynamics of an altered large marine ecosystem. _Nature_ 477, 86–89 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Brown, C. J., Abdullah, S. & Mumby, P. J. Minimizing the short-term

impacts of marine reserves on fisheries while meeting long-term goals for recovery. _Conserv. Lett._ 8, 180–189 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Sinclair, A. R. E. et al. Predicting

effects of predation on conservation of endangered prey. _Conserv. Biol._ 12, 564–575 (1998). Article  Google Scholar  * Holt, R. D., Lawton, J. H., Polis, G. A. & Martinez, N. D.

Trophic rank and the species–area relationship. _Ecology_ 80, 1495–1504 (1999). Article  Google Scholar  * Harvey, C. J., Gross, K., Simon, V. H. & Hastie, J. Trophic and fishery

interactions between Pacific hake and rockfish: effect on rockfish population rebuilding times. _Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser._ 365, 165–176 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * McCallum, H.

_Population Parameters: Estimation for Ecological Models_ (John Wiley & Sons, 2008). Google Scholar  * Neubauer, P., Jensen, O. P., Hutchings, J. A. & Baum, J. K. Resilience and

recovery of overexploited marine populations. _Science_ 340, 347–349 (2013). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Kellner, J. B., Sanchirico, J. N., Hastings, A. & Mumby, P. J.

Optimizing for multiple species and multiple values: tradeoffs inherent in ecosystem-based fisheries management. _Conserv. Lett_. 4, 21–30 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * Costello, C.,

Kinlan, B. P., Lester, S. E. & Gaines, S. D. _The Economic Value of Rebuilding Fisheries_ (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012). Google Scholar  * Oken, K. L.

& Essington, T. E. Evaluating the effect of a selective piscivore fishery on rockfish recovery within marine protected areas. _ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Cons_. 73, 2267–2277 (2016). Article 

Google Scholar  * Woods, P. J., Bouchard, C., Holland, D. S., Punt, A. E. & Marteinsdóttir, G. Catch-quota balancing mechanisms in the Icelandic multi-species demersal fishery: Are all

species equal? _Mar. Policy_ 55, 1–10 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * _Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard Guidelines_. 81 FR 71858 (NMFS,

2016).https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/18/2016-24500/magnuson-stevens-act-provisions-national-standard-guidelines * NRC _Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock

Rebuilding Plans in the United States_ (National Academies Press, 2014). * Bergstrom, B. J. et al. License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem

function. _Conserv. Lett._ 7, 131–142 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Stier, A. C. et al. Ecosystem context and historical contingency in apex predator recoveries. _Sci. Adv_. 2, e1501769

(2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Branton, M. & Richardson, J. S. Assessing the value of the umbrella-species concept for conservation planning with meta-analysis. _Conserv. Biol._ 25,

9–20 (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Svenning, J.-C. et al. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. _Proc. Natl Acad.

Sci. USA_ 113, 898–906 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lester, S. E. et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. _Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser._

384, 33–46 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * White, C., Costello, C., Kendall, B. E. & Brown, C. J. The value of coordinated management of interacting ecosystem services. _Ecol. Lett_.

15, 509–519 (2012). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Noonburg, E. G., Abrams, P. A., Losos, E. J. B. & DeAngelis, A. E. D. L. Transient dynamics limit the effectiveness of keystone

predation in bringing about coexistence. _Am. Nat._ 165, 322–335 (2005). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * McMeans, B. C., McCann, K. S., Humphries, M., Rooney, N. & Fisk, A. T. Food

web structure in temporally-forced ecosystems. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 30, 662–672 (2015). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Schrama, M., Berg, M. P. & Olff, H. Ecosystem assembly rules:

the interplay of green and brown webs during salt marsh succession. _Ecology_ 93, 2353–2364 (2012). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Hastings, A. Timescales, dynamics, and ecological

understanding. _Ecology_ 91, 3471–3480 (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Holling, C. S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. _Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst._ 4, 1–23 (1973).

Article  Google Scholar  * Pimm, S. L. & Lawton, J. H. Number of trophic levels in ecological communities. _Nature_ 268, 329–331 (1977). Article  Google Scholar  * Neubert, M. G. &

Caswell, H. Alternatives to resilience for measuring the responses of ecological systems to perturbations. _Ecology_ 78, 653–665 (1997). Article  Google Scholar  * Reynolds, J. _Conservation

of Exploited Species_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001). Google Scholar  * Kellner, J. B., Litvin, S. Y., Hastings, A., Micheli, F. & Mumby, P. J. Disentangling trophic interactions inside

a Caribbean marine reserve. _Ecol. Appl._ 20, 1979–1992 (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ricard, D., Minto, C., Jensen, O. P. & Baum, J. K. Examining the knowledge base and

status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database. _Fish Fish._ 13, 380–398 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * R Core Team. _R: A language and

environment for statistical computing_ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2014). * Packer, C. et al. Ecological change, group territoriality, and population dynamics

in Serengeti lions. _Science_ 307, 390–393 (2005). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * COSEWIC _COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus in Canada_

(Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2013). * Cleary, J. S. _Stock Assessment and Management Advice for British Columbia Pacific Herring: 2013 Status and 2014 Forecast_

(Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2014). Google Scholar  * Holmengen, N., Lehre Seip. K., Boyce. M. & Stenseth, N. C. Predator–prey coupling: interaction between mink _Mustela

vison_ and muskrat _Ondatra zibethicus_ across Canada. _Oikos_ 118, 440–448 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Frid, A. & Marliave, J. Predatory fishes affect trophic cascades and

apparent competition in temperate reefs. _Biol. Lett_. 6, 533–536 (2010). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Beaudreau, A. H. & Essington, T. E. Spatial, temporal, and

ontogenetic patterns of predation on rockfishes by lingcod. _Trans. Am. Fish. Soc_. 136, 1438–1452 (2007). Article  Google Scholar  * Micheli, F., Halpern, B. S., Botsford, L. W. &

Warner, R. R. Trajectories and correlates of community change in no-take marine reserves. _Ecol. Appl._ 14, 1709–1723 (2004). Article  Google Scholar  * Breen, P. A., Hilborn, R., Maunder,

M. N. & Kim, S. W. Effects of alternative control rules on the conflict between a fishery and a threatened sea lion (_Phocarctos hookeri_). _Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci._ 60, 527–541

(2003). Article  Google Scholar  * Essington, T. E. et al. Catch shares, fisheries, and ecological stewardship: a comparative analysis of resource responses to a rights-based policy

instrument. _Conserv. Lett_. 5,186–195 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Lambeck, R. J. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. _Conserv. Biol._ 11, 849–856 (1997).

Article  Google Scholar  * Roberge, J.-M. & Angelstam, P. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. _Conserv. Biol._ 18, 76–85 (2004). Article  Google Scholar 

* Rodrigues, A. S., Pilgrim, J. D., Lamoreux, J. F., Hoffmann, M. & Brooks, T. M. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 21, 71–76 (2006). Article  PubMed

  Google Scholar  * Evans, D. M. et al. Species recovery in the United States: increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. _Iss. Ecol._ 20, 1–27 (2016). Google Scholar  *

Schwartz, M. W. The performance of the endangered species act. _Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst._ 39, 279–299 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Magera, A. M., Flemming, J. E. M., Kaschner, K.,

Christensen, L. B. & Lotze, H. K. Recovery trends in marine mammal populations. _PLoS ONE_ 8, e77908 (2013). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Yodzis, P . Must top

predators be culled for the sake of fisheries? _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 16, 78–84 (2001). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Kutil, S. M. Scientific certainty thresholds in fisheries management: a

response to a changing climate. _Environ. Law_ 41, 233–275 (2011). Google Scholar  * Cury, P. M. et al. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—one-third for the birds. _Science_

334, 1703–1706 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T. Young helped to sharpen the presentation of this paper. J.F.S., A.C.S., B.S.H., and

P.S.L. thank the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for their support of the Ocean Tipping Points project, J. Kellner for insightful comments about model dynamics, and Guujaaw for

inspiration. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington 98112, USA Jameal F. Samhouri & Phillip S. Levin * National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, 735

State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, 93101, California, USA Adrian C. Stier & Benjamin S. Halpern * Frank Orth and Associates, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, 98112,

Washington, USA Shannon M. Hennessey * Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 97331, Oregon, USA Mark Novak * Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus,

Buckhurst Road, Ascot, SL5 7PY, Berkshire, UK Benjamin S. Halpern * Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, 93106, California, USA

Benjamin S. Halpern Authors * Jameal F. Samhouri View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Adrian C. Stier View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Shannon M. Hennessey View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Mark Novak View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Benjamin S. Halpern View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Phillip

S. Levin View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS J.F.S., A.C.S., P.S.L. and M.N. designed the study. J.F.S., A.C.S., M.N. and

S.M.H. collected and analysed all data. J.F.S., A.C.S., P.S.L., B.S.H. and M.N. jointly wrote the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Jameal F. Samhouri. ETHICS DECLARATIONS

COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing financial interests. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Supplementary Discussion; Supplementary Figures 1–8;

Supplementary Tables 1–3 (PDF 788 kb) RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Samhouri, J., Stier, A., Hennessey, S. _et al._ Rapid and direct

recoveries of predators and prey through synchronized ecosystem management. _Nat Ecol Evol_ 1, 0068 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0068 Download citation * Received: 27 July 2016

* Accepted: 22 December 2016 * Published: 01 March 2017 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0068 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this

content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative