Blog Archive

Wednesday, October 22, 2025

Ecosystem Engineering vs. Ecological Engineering: Niche Construction, Restoration, and Enhancement

 

     Biological evolution seems to involve a kind of innovation, whereby novel adaptations or mutations sometimes appear when needed. There are epigenetic examples where a default state reverts to an alternative state with a different gene expression under certain conditions and back to the default state when the conditions change. Adaptation can be seen as a form of biological engineering. On a different scale and scope, there are activities among certain species that can be called ecosystem engineering. Probably the most common example is that of beavers constructing their dams that create and maintain these engineered ecosystems.

     How does ecosystem engineering differ from ecological engineering? Ecosystem engineering might be seen as “natural” ecosystem change according to animal instinct, while ecological engineering might be seen as specific human endeavors consciously planned and executed to change ecosystems. The word “ecological” refers to the “study of” ecology, such study being a uniquely human endeavor. Perhaps a better way to describe both is as forms of “niche construction,” which is defined in Wikipedia as follows:

Niche construction is the ecological process by which an organism alters its own (or another species') local environment. These alterations can be a physical change to the organism's environment, or it can encompass the active movement of an organism from one habitat to another where it then experiences different environmental pressures. Examples of niche construction include the building of nests and burrows by animals, the creation of shade, the influencing of wind speed, and alternations to nutrient cycling by plants. Although these modifications are often directly beneficial to the constructor, they are not necessarily always. For example, when organisms dump detritus, they can degrade their own local environments. Within some biological evolutionary frameworks, niche construction can actively beget processes pertaining to ecological inheritance whereby the organism in question "constructs" new or unique ecologic, and perhaps even sociologic environmental realities characterized by specific selective pressures.”

     After observing nature as a human, I have often made the statement that “nature is an opportunist.” It seems that the instinctual behavior-dominating species of non-humans are always seeking to gain in the quest for survival and need fulfillment.

     The section below is from Chapter 1 of my 2021 book, Sensible Decarbonization explores the idea of nature and the nexus of nature and humans. Humans can be seen as beyond nature in one sense and part of it in another. Humans’ ability to alter nature is unprecedented and worrisome as the population continues to increase. One could perhaps say that we also cause a lot of niche destruction, destroying habitats and stressing species.

 

What is Nature and How Do Humans Fit In?

     Our concept of nature is probably a bit different than ancient peoples’ concept of nature, especially after the Industrial Revolution. Many of us see our inventions and technologies as something different from nature. They are man-made, synthetic, even artificial, which also means fake or unnatural. In a sense, we compete with nature as creators. The lines between natural and artificial are much blurred these days. Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill emphasized our mastery over nature and how it benefited us. Jedidiah Purdy, in his book After Nature: A Politics of the Anthropocene, writes: “If Nature were a place, we could not find it, If Nature were a state of mind, we could not attain it. We are something else, and so is the world.”[1]  What I think he means is that the definition of nature is changing, especially in relation to humans. With 7.7 billion humans inhabiting a world where we decide which parts of nature are preserved, where we selectively breed our food, and where we impact nature in diverse and profound ways, there is no longer a dichotomy between humans and nature. One might say we are the biggest part of nature, the biggest influence on nature. We are in the Age of Humans, the Anthropocene. Just like in the deep past, the earth was once dominated by bacteria, first the prokaryotes, cyanobacteria, and methanogens, then eukaryotes, and later plants and animals gained influence, now it is humans that do much of the influencing. We and all creatures evolve with our environment, altering it to improve our chances of survival. This is known a “niche construction.” Thus, we were never really separate from nature. It was just a convenient way of depicting things for a time. Among conservationists, nature is no longer considered to be simply “pristine wilderness,” notes writer Emma Marris, author in 2011 of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World.[2] We humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere and the oceans just like those microbes did in their heydays. Our influence on nature is everywhere. We have moved and mixed animal and plant species all over the world. Humans are also master manipulators of the materials of nature, creators called homo faber, man the user of tools, man the maker of his destiny. “What humans do is utilize nature by manipulating its materials. The material world is not just a display of our technology and culture, it is part of us. We invented it, we made it, and in turn it makes us who we are,” says materials scientist and engineer Mark Miodownik, author of Stuff Matters: Exploring the Marvelous Materials that Shape Our Man-Made World.[3] Of course, humans are not alone in influencing nature. Many other species do it, but usually on smaller scales, more locally, and sometimes on much slower, evolutionary time scales. In evolutionary time, plants develop thorns and the manufacture of poisons to dissuade local nibblers. In real-time, beavers engineer small lakes and reroute rivers by felling trees and building dams. Elephants root out trees to maintain grassland. Stream-dwelling shipworms eat away at rock, which creates niche habitat for invertebrates. Squirrels plant oak trees. Cyanobacteria were arguably the first of these ecosystem engineers when they oxygenated the atmosphere, a global-scale effect. A study and paper in Nature Communications from the Santa Fe Institute attempts to quantify these ecosystem engineering, or niche construction feats in terms of ecosystem effects.[4] Food webs, species interactions, and extinctions were considered. A network of these ecosystem engineers in sufficient numbers was found to increase ecosystem stability and lead to few extinctions. They created an ecological network model based solely on interactions where species do three things: eat, need, and make. The model is a way to “explore the dynamics of ecosystem assembly.”  Interestingly, the article suggests that we humans are “planetary scale {ecosystem} engineers.” Such models can aid understanding and perhaps help quantify some ecosystem services, which in turn can help quantify business externalities, both negative and positive, that respectively pollute or benefit the environment. Much of our engineering, as well as that of other species, has had unintentional environmental effects, which is often because they were not planned with conscious, educated consideration of possible future effects. As time goes on, we understand impacts better. Ecosystems reorient in various ways according to inputs. If this continues for long time periods, then evolutionary-scale interactions between one species and another, or between a species and some part of the environment, then evolutionary changes are possible and known to happen. Fixation or switching on or off of gene alleles in response to environmental conditions occurs via epigenetic changes and can happen over much shorter time scales than natural selection. Thus, we and all species co-evolve with other species and with our environments. We change nature. Nature changes us. We also adapt to nature, and nature adapts to us.

     We have gotten better at adapting to nature, and we have gotten better at assisting nature in adapting to us. A recent experiment revealed that by infecting a disease-carrying mosquito with bacteria and releasing it, the rates of dengue fever dropped in the Indonesian city of Yogyakarta, making it four times less likely that a person would be infected over a two-year period compared to before. Indonesia has 7 million cases of dengue per year, so this could be a big help.[5] The same mosquito also carries Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever, so the implications could be huge. There appear to be no safety concerns with humans, so the next step is more releases. Thus far, it appears that the bacteria impair the ability to acquire the disease, and importantly, they also pass on the bacteria to their offspring, making them also unable to get dengue. However, since mosquitoes don’t travel far, there needs to be multiple releases to cover their ranges.  

     In a fascinating article for the Genetic Literacy Project, epidemiologist Jean-Paul Oury writes that anti-GMO activism is ideological, tends to deify nature, wants to define nature and decide what is natural and what is not, and has a limited view of nature. Gene transfer can be vertical, as in normal evolution, or horizontal, as in horizontal gene flow and transgenic processes, which also occur in nature. Anti-GMO advocates want to define the latter as unnatural, while pro-GMO advocates accept that horizontal gene flow is natural and that doing it with biotech is simply copying nature, or improving on it, as is selective breeding. Thus, the pro-GMO advocates have a broader and less limited view of nature. The ability to define what is natural and unnatural is a kind of power since we have become somewhat biased in such a way that natural is often seen as beneficial, and unnatural (which is also associated with that which is artificial or man-made) is often seen as harmful. It is another form of narrative control.[6] The question is: Do we want scientists writing the story, or do we want activists writing the story? More specifically, do we want a strong consensus of scientists writing the story, or do we want activists with a few dissenting scientists aligned to them writing the story? Goals that are often ideological, like bans, moratoriums, and very limited frameworks, seek to limit innovative human endeavors. There is nothing particularly scientific about the precautionary principle. It is more or less an ideological approach. 


 Ecosystem Engineer Species Examples

     A 2021 article by treehugger.com notes 10 species that serve as ecosystem engineers. Either for themselves and/or for other species. They describe ecosystem engineers as follows:

“Ecosystem engineers are species that create, destroy, modify, or maintain habitats in significant ways. These uniquely productive animals create conditions for other species to benefit from, such as adequate shelter or food sources.”

     They list 10 species that are ecosystem engineers: 1) Beavers divert and control streams, creating habitat for many other species, 2) Elephants make large footprint depressions, migration trails, and sometimes convert forest into grasslands, thus changing ecosystems, 3) Pecarries, related to pigs, make wallows which are utilized by many other species, increasing biodiversity in Central and South American rainforests, 4) Arctic foxes engineer soil chemistry by constructing dens to shelter pups, with urine, feces, and rotting prey enhancing local soil fertility, 5) Coral create reef structures that affect ocean currents, and create specific ocean ecosystems where a great diversity of plants and animal species thrive, 6) Kelp forests in cold coastal ocean waters also create thriving ecosystems of great biodiversity, 7) Termites enhance soil nutrient cycling, soil texture, soil aeration, and soil consolidation, 8) Red groper fish clear sand and sediment from ocean floor depressions, creating homes for themselves and many other species, 9) Woodpeckers make nesting cavities that are later used by other bird species for nesting, and 10) Prairie dogs create vast underground “towns” that other species use, such as rabbits, amphibians, snakes, and birds. They also enhance soil aeration, water infiltration, and nutrient cycling.  

     There are numerous other examples of niche construction in the natural world that could be considered to be ecosystem engineering. 

     The Wikipedia entry notes that “humans possess an unusually potent capability to regulate, construct, and destroy their environments.” It also notes that human evolution involved much niche construction, some of which is cultural, noting that “human cultural niche construction has co-directed human evolution” in a process known as gene-culture co-evolution. We are both products and creators of niche construction.


Ecological Restoration and Enhancement as Ecological Engineering


 

     This is referring to human endeavors like land restoration, habitat improvements, and other ways we might engineer and construct projects to help nature thrive. With careful planning, execution, and continued monitoring, humans can restore and enhance some ecosystems. Even simple things like pollinator gardens can help certain species to thrive. We can also, of course, inadvertently damage ecosystems with our construction projects.

     The Wikipedia entry for ‘Ecological engineering’ notes the following five classes and 19 design principles of ecological engineering from Mitsch and Jorgensen’s 2003 book ‘Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem Restoration’:

Five Functional Classes for ecological engineering designs

1.     Ecosystem utilized to reduce/solve pollution problem. Example: phytoremediation, wastewater wetland, and bioretention of stormwater to filter excess nutrients and metals pollution

2.     Ecosystem imitated or copied to address resource problem. Example: forest restoration, replacement wetlands, and installing street side rain gardens to extend canopy cover to optimize residential and urban cooling

3.     Ecosystem recovered after disturbance. Example: mine land restoration, lake restoration, and channel aquatic restoration with mature riparian corridors

4.     Ecosystem modified in ecologically sound way. Example: selective timber harvest, biomanipulation, and introduction of predator fish to reduce planktivorous fish, increase zooplankton, consume algae or phytoplankton, and clarify the water.

5.     Ecosystems used for benefit without destroying balance. Example: sustainable agro-ecosystems, multispecies aquaculture, and introducing agroforestry plots into residential property to generate primary production at multiple vertical levels.

Mitsch and Jorgensen identified 19 Design Principles for ecological engineering, yet not all are expected to contribute to any single design:

1.     Ecosystem structure & function are determined by forcing functions of the system;

2.     Energy inputs to the ecosystems and available storage of the ecosystem is limited;

3.     Ecosystems are open and dissipative systems (not thermodynamic balance of energy, matter, entropy, but spontaneous appearance of complex, chaotic structure);

4.     Attention to a limited number of governing/controlling factors is most strategic in preventing pollution or restoring ecosystems;

5.     Ecosystem have some homeostatic capability that results in smoothing out and depressing the effects of strongly variable inputs;

6.     Match recycling pathways to the rates of ecosystems and reduce pollution effects;

7.     Design for pulsing systems wherever possible;

8.     Ecosystems are self-designing systems;

9.     Processes of ecosystems have characteristic time and space scales that should be accounted for in environmental management;

10. Biodiversity should be championed to maintain an ecosystem's self design capacity;

11. Ecotones, transition zones, are as important for ecosystems as membranes for cells;

12. Coupling between ecosystems should be utilized wherever possible;

13. The components of an ecosystem are interconnected, interrelated, and form a network; consider direct as well as indirect efforts of ecosystem development;

14. An ecosystem has a history of development;

15. Ecosystems and species are most vulnerable at their geographical edges;

16. Ecosystems are hierarchical systems and are parts of a larger landscape;

17. Physical and biological processes are interactive, it is important to know both physical and biological interactions and to interpret them properly;

18. Eco-technology requires a holistic approach that integrates all interacting parts and processes as far as possible;

19. Information in ecosystems is stored in structures.

     The classes show that there are many varieties of ecological restoration, and the design principles show that there are many considerations of such projects.

     The following graphic attempts to show how ecological engineering relates to environmental engineering and civil engineering.




     The book Conservation Techniques, by Marci X. Meixler and Mark B. Bain, has a chapter devoted to Ecosystem engineering. They see ecosystem engineering as a broader approach than just restoration. I am using the terms restoration and enhancement to make this distinction. We are engineering ecosystems both purposely and inadvertently.





      The chapter summary is given below:

“As a field, ecological engineering focuses on alleviating ecosystem stress responses as these are symptoms of poor ecological health. In practice, there seems to be more emphasis on collaborative goal-setting that results in consensus on a vision for ecosystem design. The practical need to gain public support for a new ecosystem is seen as essential for long-term sustainability. The underlying goal of ecological engineering is to improve degraded and abandoned environments to provide benefits to both people and nature and this goal figures prominently in the case study. While this environmental management technique lacks an established track record and principles for success, there appears to be general consistency in many of the key features of this approach.”     

     The following table from the book compares expected normal vs. stressed ecosystem properties. The response of sensitive species to ecological stress is often a major indicator of the presence of that stress.



    The following graph simply shows that ecosystem degradation is highest when ecosystem stress is highest, but it also suggests that when stresses hit a certain level, there is a faster move toward ecosystem degradation as sensitive species are replaced by tolerant species.

   






References:

 

10 Ecosystem Engineers That Create New Habitats: Ecosystem engineers create conditions for other species to thrive in. Autumn Spanne. Treehugger. Updated August 29, 2021. 10 Ecosystem Engineers That Create New Habitats

Ecological engineering. Wikipedia. Ecological engineering - Wikipedia

Ecosystem engineer. Wikipedia. Ecosystem engineer - Wikipedia

Ecological Engineering. Chapter 9 of Conservation Techniques, by Marci X. Meixler and Mark B. Bain. Rutgers Universal Libraries. Ecological Engineering – Conservation Techniques

Niche construction. Wikipedia. Niche construction - Wikipedia

 


[1] Purdy, J. (2015). After Nature: A Politics of the Anthropocene. Harvard University Press.

[2] Maris, E. (2011). Rambunctious Garden: Nature in a Post-Wild World. Bloomsbury.

[3] Miodownik, M. (2015). Stuff Matters: Exploring the Marvelous Materials that Shape Our Man-Made World. Mariner.

[4] Yeakel, J. D., Pires, M. M., & Gross, T. (2020, July 3). Diverse Interactions and Ecosystem Engineering Can Stabilize Community Assembly. Nature Communications (11).

 5] Sanders, R. (2020, August 26). Breakthrough in eliminating dengue, other mosquito-borne diseases. Berkeley News. Retrieved from https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/08/26/breakthrough-in-eliminating-dengue-other-mosquito-borne-diseases/

 [6] Oury, J.-P. (2020, July 13). Viewpoint: Activist opposition to GMOs fueled by an 'extremist' vision of nature. Genetic Literacy Project. Retrieved from https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/07/13/viewpoint-activist-opposition-to-gmos-fueled-by-an-extremist-vision-of-nature/

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

     Scientists at a Loughborough University spin-out company, R3 Tech, have developed an electrochemical process that converts crude glycer...