Recent collapse of crop belts and declining diversity of US agriculture since 1840.

Over the last century, US agriculture greatly intensified and became industrialized, increasing in inputs and yields while decreasing in total cropland area. In the industrial sector, spatial agglomeration effects are typical, but such changes in the patterns of crop types and diversity would have major implications for the resilience of food systems to global change. Here, we investigate the extent to which agricultural industrialization in the United States was accompanied by agglomeration of crop types, not just overall cropland area, as well as declines in crop diversity. Based on county-level analyses of individual crop land cover area in the conterminous United States from 1840 to 2017, we found a strong and abrupt spatial concentration of most crop types in very recent years. For 13 of the 18 major crops, the widespread belts that characterized early 20th century US agriculture have collapsed, with spatial concentration increasing 15-fold after 2002. The number of counties producing each crop declined from 1940 to 2017 by up to 97%, and their total area declined by up to 98%, despite increasing total production. Concomitantly, the diversity of crop types within counties plummeted: in 1940, 88% of counties grew >10 crops, but only 2% did so in 2017, and combinations of crop types that once characterized entire agricultural regions are lost. Importantly, declining crop diversity with increasing cropland area is a recent phenomenon, suggesting that corresponding environmental effects in agriculturally dominated counties have fundamentally changed. For example, the spatial concentration of agriculture has important consequences for the spread of crop pests, agrochemical use, and climate change. Ultimately, the recent collapse of most agricultural belts and the loss of crop diversity suggest greater vulnerability of US food systems to environmental and economic change, but the spatial concentration of agriculture may also offer environmental benefits in areas that are no longer farmed.

Differing climatic mechanisms control transient and accumulated vegetation novelty in Europe and eastern North America.

Understanding the mechanisms of climate that produce novel ecosystems is of joint interest to conservation biologists and palaeoecologists. Here, we define and differentiate transient from accumulated novelty and evaluate four climatic mechanisms proposed to cause species to reshuffle into novel assemblages: high climatic novelty, high spatial rates of change (displacement), high variance among displacement rates for individual climate variables, and divergence among displacement vector bearings. We use climate simulations to quantify climate novelty, displacement and divergence across Europe and eastern North America from the last glacial maximum to the present, and fossil pollen records to quantify vegetation novelty. Transient climate novelty is consistently the strongest predictor of transient vegetation novelty, while displacement rates (mean and variance) are equally important in Europe. However, transient vegetation novelty is lower in Europe and its relationship to climatic predictors is the opposite of expectation. For both continents, accumulated novelty is greater than transient novelty, and climate novelty is the strongest predictor of accumulated ecological novelty. These results suggest that controls on novel ecosystems vary with timescale and among continents, and that the twenty-first century emergence of novelty will be driven by both rapid rates of climate change and the emergence of novel climate states. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The past is a foreign country: how much can the fossil record actually inform conservation?'

Land-use and climatic causes of environmental novelty in Wisconsin since 1890.

Multiple global change drivers are increasing the present and future novelty of environments and ecological communities. However, most assessments of environmental novelty have focused only on future climate and were conducted at scales too broad to be useful for land management or conservation. Here, using historical county-level data sets of agricultural land use, forest composition, and climate, we conduct a regional-scale assessment of environmental novelty for Wisconsin landscapes from ca. 1890 to 2012. Agricultural land-use data include six cropland types, livestock densities for four livestock species, and human populations. Forestry data comprise biomass-weighted relative abundances for 15 tree genera. Climate data comprise seasonal means for temperature and precipitation. We found that forestry and land use are the strongest cause of environmental novelty (NoveltyForest  = 3.66, NoveltyAg  = 2.83, NoveltyClimate  = 1.60, with Wisconsin's forests transformed by early 20th-century logging and its legacies and multiple waves of agricultural innovation and obsolescence. Climate change is the smallest contributor to contemporary novelty, with precipitation signals stronger than temperature. Magnitudes and causes of environmental novelty are strongly spatially patterned, with novelty in southern Wisconsin roughly twice that in northern Wisconsin. Forestry is the most important cause of novelty in the north, land use and climate change are jointly important in the southwestern Wisconsin, and land use and forest composition are most important in central and eastern Wisconsin. Areas of high regional novelty tend also to be areas of high local change, but local change has not pushed all counties beyond regional baselines. Seven counties serve as the best historical analogues for over one-half of contemporary Wisconsin counties (40/72), and so can offer useful historical counterparts for contemporary systems and help managers coordinate to tackle similar environmental challenges. Multi-dimensional environmental novelty analyses, like those presented here, can help identify the best historical analogues for contemporary ecosystems, places where new management rules and practices may be needed because novelty is already high, and the main causes of novelty. Separating regional novelty clearly from local change and measuring both across many dimensions and at multiple scales thus helps advance ecology and sustainability science alike.

The rise of novelty in ecosystems.

Rapid and ongoing change creates novelty in ecosystems everywhere, both when comparing contemporary systems to their historical baselines, and predicted future systems to the present. However, the level of novelty varies greatly among places. Here we propose a formal and quantifiable definition of abiotic and biotic novelty in ecosystems, map abiotic novelty globally, and discuss the implications of novelty for the science of ecology and for biodiversity conservation. We define novelty as the degree of dissimilarity of a system, measured in one or more dimensions relative to a reference baseline, usually defined as either the present or a time window in the past. In this conceptualization, novelty varies in degree, it is multidimensional, can be measured, and requires a temporal and spatial reference. This definition moves beyond prior categorical definitions of novel ecosystems, and does not include human agency, self-perpetuation, or irreversibility as criteria. Our global assessment of novelty was based on abiotic factors (temperature, precipitation, and nitrogen deposition) plus human population, and shows that there are already large areas with high novelty today relative to the early 20th century, and that there will even be more such areas by 2050. Interestingly, the places that are most novel are often not the places where absolute changes are largest; highlighting that novelty is inherently different from change. For the ecological sciences, highly novel ecosystems present new opportunities to test ecological theories, but also challenge the predictive ability of ecological models and their validation. For biodiversity conservation, increasing novelty presents some opportunities, but largely challenges. Conservation action is necessary along the entire continuum of novelty, by redoubling efforts to protect areas where novelty is low, identifying conservation opportunities where novelty is high, developing flexible yet strong regulations and policies, and establishing long-term experiments to test management approaches. Meeting the challenge of novelty will require advances in the science of ecology, and new and creative. conservation approaches.