Tag Archives: monitoring

The Symbiotic Technobiosphere

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / March 24, 2026

Examples of symbiosis. Image Credits: coral, lichen, butterfly.

Background

Scientific discourse on Earth system narratives could benefit from a new term to describe a future state of the Earth system in which humanity achieves a more harmonious relationship with the biosphere.  Here, I propose the term “symbiotic technobiosphere” for that aspirational state.

I originally adopted the term technobiosphere in 2011 to describe the coupled system of technosphere and biosphere.  The context was a paper advocating advanced monitoring tools, especially satellite remote sensing, for application in global environmental management. 

The biosphere and the technosphere are usually viewed separately in the Earth system science literature.  Each is a dissipative system with mass, energy flow, and materials cycling.  Both spheres significantly impact Earth’s climate and biogeochemical cycling.  At present, they are spatially contiguous but not sustainably coupled.

If the human enterprise on Earth is to flourish, the biosphere and technosphere must become highly integrated – hence the term technobiosphere.  I’ve added the metaphorical “symbiotic” as an adjective to emphasize an idealized codependency between the spheres.

The term symbiosis is generally accepted to include any intimate association of two dissimilar species.  In the discipline of biology, symbiosis originally referred only to mutualisms (both species benefit).  However, later authors extended the meaning to cover all intimate interspecies relationships along a continuum from parasitism (one benefits, the other is harmed), to commensalism (one benefits, the other is neutral), to mutualism (both benefit).  A change from one type of relationship to another, depending on the physical environment, is sometimes observed.

A lichen is the classic example of mutualism-based symbiosis – its biomass includes an algal partner doing the photosynthesis and a fungal partner providing a structural foundation and scavenging for nutrients.  Other widespread mutualism-based symbioses include corals, mycorrhizae, and gut microflora of ruminants and termites.

The characteristic physical intimacy of two living things associated with symbiosis is certainly found in the biosphere-technosphere relationship.  The ubiquity of the biosphere on the surface of Earth is evident from the satellite-based monitoring of photosynthesis on the land and ocean (Figure 1).  Likewise, the ubiquity of the technosphere is evident from satellite-based monitoring of Earth at night (Figure 2).  The spheres interact by way of physical impacts as well as exchanges of energy and material.

Figure 1. Global Net Primary Production based on satellite imagery. Image Credit: Woodward 2007.

Figure 2. Earth at night. Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Visualization Analysis Laboratory.

The emphasis in biological symbiosis on a genetic basis for the partnership does not apply directly to the technobiosphere because the information that drives the technosphere is mostly digital rather than genetic.  Nevertheless, there is coevolution of sorts going on.  The gene-culture coevolution that could eventually generate a mutualistic technobiosphere will rely on genetic evolution on the biosphere side and cultural evolution on the technosphere side.

In memetic theory, cultural evolution in humans is based on selection of memes, i.e. ideas, words, and cultural practices (bits of information) that are transmitted horizontally (within generations) and vertically (between generations) by speech and example.  Memes are loosely analogous to genes in the sense of arising like mutations (new thoughts) and being selected (adopted by other humans).

Cultural evolution clearly operated in the case of agriculture’s origin – humans were initially only seed predators of wild grain plants, but through cultural evolution they began to plow and plant and harvest.  In the gene-culture coevolutionary framework, the genetic characteristics of the crop plants, such as seed size, were simultaneously changing by way of artificial selection.

On a contemporary farm, the crop plants (e.g. corn) have become highly genetically modified from their wild forms so as to be compatible with machine-oriented management.  The human management (technosphere) side of the relationship has also radically evolved, in this case via cultural evolution of machine design and management practices. 

Biosphere Services to the Technosphere

I suggest here that the symbiosis metaphor can be fruitfully extended to the whole biosphere/technosphere relationship.

The current relationship of technosphere to biosphere is mostly the parasitism form of symbiosis.  The technosphere utilizes over 25% of terrestrial net primary production (NPP).  Domesticated livestock scavenge global grasslands and shrublands for edible plant biomass, heavily mechanized agriculture produces crops for human consumption, heavily mechanized forestry extracts wood for construction and paper products, and a global fleet of fishing vessels scours the seas for marine wildlife.  Natural wilderness occupies only about 25% of the global ice-free land surface. Broadly speaking, technosphere capital is rapidly depleting biosphere capital.  Unregulated capitalism tends to facilitate biosphere degradation because negative externalities of natural resource exploitation are ignored.

The technosphere is also dependent on the biosphere for a steady supply of oxygen (produced by photosynthesis).  Human respiration, and fossil fuel combustion, require ample oxygen.  Other ecosystem services like provision of fresh water and organic matter decomposition are similarly dependent on the biosphere, and crucial to technosphere metabolism. 

Technosphere Services to the Biosphere

It is not intuitive, but I would argue that the Anthropocene biosphere is becoming increasingly dependent on a well-functioning technosphere.  Most of the technosphere services noted here exist only in nascent form but could be purposefully augmented.

Most generally, the technosphere could provide a network of institutions for global monitoring (of both biosphere and technosphere), modeling (for diagnostic and prognostic purposes), and environmental governance (at all relevant scales).  Associated feedback loops would then link the functioning of the technosphere to the functioning of the biosphere. 

Monitoring by the technosphere would extend to environmental variables like land cover, water quality, and biodiversity.  In each case, monitoring is needed to inform environmental governance institutions.

Notably, the technosphere should monitor and regulate (if needed) greenhouse gas concentrations.  In the case of carbon dioxide, high concentrations would be moderated by negotiated targets achieved by reduced emissions, Natural Climate Solutions (e.g. afforestation), and various geoengineering approaches.

Another critical technosphere service would be environmentally friendly recycling of all technosphere material waste.  This requirement extends from sewage to everything currently going into landfills.

Besides monitoring the Earth system, the technosphere sensory system could extend out into the solar system to detect and possibly deter threats to the biosphere, such as asteroids having potential to collide with Earth.

Homeostatic Coupling of Technosphere and Biosphere

A more highly integrated coupling of technosphere and biosphere will rely on emerging feedback loops.  As a start towards engaging those feedbacks, Earth system scientists have established a set of planetary boundaries i.e. measurable features of the Earth system that are impacted by the technosphere and can be monitored.  For each variable, a threshold has been established beyond which the Earth system is considered substantially altered away from the Holocene reference state.  A relatively stable climate during the Holocene (~9,700 BCE to present) favored the origin of agriculture and the buildout of the technosphere. 

Planetary boundaries related to the biosphere include the rate of species extinction, the proportion of biosphere NPP appropriated by humans, and the area of forested land as a percentage of the original forest cover.  The feedback loop needed between the technosphere and biosphere requires a purposeful (teleologic) humanity that responds (self-regulates) when it observes a planetary boundary threshold is crossed.

Take the case of the species extinction rate boundary.  Because of technosphere practices like deforestation, the rate of species extinction is much higher now than in most previous geologic periods.  Yet the technosphere is also monitoring the extinction rate and consequently is beginning to alter land use so as to selectively leave more undisturbed habitat for endangered species (i.e. a negative feedback loop).

Conclusion

Since the technosphere and the biosphere are co-dependent, co-evolving, and intimately associated, it is worthwhile evoking the symbiosis metaphor for their relationship at the global scale.  It reminds us to see ourselves as embedded in a complex global system rather than as detached managers of natural resources.

The “Shifting Baseline Syndrome” Concept Can Apply to Ecosystem Process Rates

Posted on by
Reply

David P. Turner / July 16, 2025

Sea otter consuming sea urchins.  Photo Credit: matt “smooth” thooth knoth through Flickr via Creative Commons License.

Introduction

The Shifting Baseline Syndrome (SBS) holds that successive generations of natural resource managers tend to have a different image of what is natural. 

The concept was originally proposed by a fisheries biologist (Daniel Pauly) who observed it in the context of declines in commercially harvested fish populations.

The obvious management significance of SBS is that population targets for restoration of natural ecosystems might be too low.

Here I will visit application of the SBS concept to ecological processes rather than just state variables like population size and biodiversity. 

First though, I note that one might ask if the term “baseline” even has meaning anymore.

We know that virtually all natural processes are now altered by human actions to some degree.  Also, that anthropogenic climate change and the 6th Extinction will play out over centuries, and will be largely irreversible.  Everything measurable about ecosystems is shifting, hence in some sense there are no baselines.  Which makes it a good time to hone in on how best to use the SBS concept. 

Case Studies of SBS in Relation to Ecological Processes

1.  Effects of Predation in Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems

“Trophic cascade” effects of losing the upper trophic level in an ecosystem are common in terrestrial, as well as marine, ecosystems but are not always obvious. 

A land manager coming anew to Yellowstone National Park in the 1980s  ̶  after extirpation of wolves  ̶  and encountering overgrazing along streams, might not appreciate the regulatory role of wolves on the elk population (a major herbivorous species).  The baseline for the process of predation on elk had shifted, but the land manager might miss it.

A survey of kelp abundance along the coast of the Pacific Northwest US in the late 20th century would have found little kelp.  This form of marine plant is of great ecological importance because it provides food and protection for young fish.  A major control on kelp abundance is the presence of sea urchins.  They prowl the ocean floor and consume dead and live kelp plants.  A major control on sea urchin abundance is predation by sea otters.  The otters are able to overcome sea urchin spines and feast on their internal organs.  Unfortunately, sea otter fur is quite valuable and the otters in the Pacific Northwest were hunted to local extinction by around 1910.  As a consequence, urchin barrens  ̶  where little kelp is found   ̶   have formed from an overpopulation of sea urchins, with corresponding effects on fish populations.  As kelp faded from the near shore environment in the 20th Century, wildlife managers may have begun to think kelp was naturally found only at low density in these waters (a case of SBS).  Restoration of sea otter predation on sea urchins, and better management of other sea urchin predators, is helping recreate more vibrant, kelp-friendly, marine ecosystems. 

2.  Effects of Declining Invertebrate Diversity on Decomposition

Ecosystem ecologists commonly study rates of leaf litter decomposition by enclosing fallen leaves in a mesh bag and leaving the bag on the soil for an extended period.  The rate of change in dry weight is then a metric for decomposition rate.  One might assume that the results of a litter bag study reflect natural or baseline conditions.  But such is no longer the case.

A critical factor that is moving this bar is the “insect apocalypse”.  The process of decomposition (i.e. decay of foliage, roots, wood) is driven in part by invertebrates such as insects and slugs, and the process is slowed by a decline in invertebrate biodiversity. 

Driving forces in the decline of insect biodiversity include land use change, pesticides, and effects of climate change.  Desynchronization in the interactions among insect species, and between insect species and local plants, can significantly impact local populations.

Slowed decomposition means slower release of nutrients and possibly slower plant growth.  Thus, by altering state variables such as the diversity of invertebrates, we are altering critical process rates, possibly on a massive scale.  But detecting and tracking these rate changes is difficult.

3.  Effects of Deforestation on Regional Evapotranspiration

Large areas of the Amazon Basin have been deforested in recent decades.  A key process altered by deforestation is the transpiration of water, i.e. loss of water through leaf stomata.  Where canopy leaf area is decreased, transpiration decreases and because around 50% of precipitation in a rain forest is recycled from previous rain events (by way of transpiration), the loss of forest leaf area associated with regional deforestation tends to induce a decline in regional precipitation.  Decreased precipitation in the Amazon Basin is projected to impact native vegetation and agriculture.

The principle of “stationarity” in climate research is similar to that of “baseline” in ecological studies.  Climatologists aspire to describe the statistical properties (e.g. mean and variability) for properties like precipitation and temperature for a given region.  The climate is designated as stationary if these statistical properties are stable over time.  If those properties are drifting, as in the case of fossil-fuel-emissions-driven climate change, the climate is said to be non-stationarity and hence less predictable.

If ecological baselines are shifting and the climate is losing stationarity, natural resource managers require strong monitoring programs to track changes, and new adaptive strategies to avoid ecosystem degradation.

Conservation Strategies in the Face of SBS

A growing awareness of shifting ecological process rates, and the possible consequences, has helped inspire several conservation strategies.

Rewilding

The original “rewilding” concept emphasized “cores, corridors, and carnivores”.  Advocates pointed to degraded ecosystems and attributed the problem to the decline or absence of specific processes, e.g. predation.  The full range of trophic interactions was seen as fundamental to shaping the structure and function of ecosystems and landscapes.  Human interventions such as hunting were not considered a substitute for natural processes such as predation.

The reintroduction of wolves to the Yellowstone region is an iconic case of rewilding.  But the theory has also been applied in the case of background processes like decomposition.  Here, transfer of invertebrates and microbes from undisturbed to disturbed sites helps restore decomposition rates. 

The theory of rewilding is still under development but a core principle is to keep ecosystems “wild” – meaning to insure the continuous operation of all natural processes needed to drive the self-organization that is characteristic of complex systems.

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)

Large areas of land and ocean provide services to humans – notably food, wood, water filtration, and recreation.  These working ecosystems are clearly no longer natural, yet they contribute to biosphere metabolism and are worth managing as such.

Human interventions and impacts are often altering these ecosystems, sometimes with limited reference to natural processes e.g. the full range of impacts form cattle grazing on public rangelands in the western US is poorly understood.  An NBS management approach aims to restore and monitor core ecological processes needed to provide ecosystem services to humans and to support thriving ecosystems as parts of the biosphere.

NBS is a conservation framework with an “overarching goal to address global societal challenges”.  It tends to be applied at large scales and require significant human management intervention.  On the human side, delivering ecosystem services and comprehensive stakeholder involvement are core objectives.  On the ecological side, the emphasis is on management of natural processes.  Restoration and management of mangrove forests is a good example because it requires intensive site manipulation that ultimately provides services like carbon sequestration and coastline protection from storm surges.

Both private sector and public sector efforts at sustainability are increasingly framed in terms of a nature – centered perspective.

Conclusions

Anthropogenically-driven non-stationarity in the physical environment, and shifting baselines for both state variables and ecological processes, are increasingly relevant to natural resources management.  Conservation frameworks like rewilding and Nature-Based Solutions provide adaptive strategies for managing under these contemporary conditions.  Governmental support for monitoring and restoration at multiple scales is required.