WEBVTT

1
00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:19.000
The key differences between assessing species
or ecosystems [habitats] is a theme

2
00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:25.180
that is interesting to discuss.
We could now compare the 

3
00:00:25.180 --> 00:00:29.460
Red List assessments of species
and ecosystems a little bit.

4
00:00:29.460 --> 00:00:32.820
The international IUCN method was originally
developed for assessing species,

5
00:00:32.820 --> 00:00:38.070
or actually for assessing species and subspecies, so
the correct term is taxon, that is,

6
00:00:38.070 --> 00:00:44.200
a scientifically described and named
groups of organisms. So, the species method

7
00:00:44.200 --> 00:00:50.700
was developed for assessing taxa. And for habitats –
or ecosystems, as the IUCN guidelines say –

8
00:00:50.700 --> 00:00:55.840
for them an applied method
was developed later on. This method

9
00:00:55.840 --> 00:01:00.370
is partly based on the established principles

10
00:01:00.370 --> 00:01:06.240
of the earlier species assessment’s
terms, practices, and principles,

11
00:01:06.240 --> 00:01:10.220
but the theoretical background
is a bit different, that is,

12
00:01:10.220 --> 00:01:12.450
the way in which

13
00:01:12.450 --> 00:01:17.010
the threat assessment of ecosystems
is carried out. The criteria are different

14
00:01:17.010 --> 00:01:21.130
than in species
threat assessments.

15
00:01:21.130 --> 00:01:27.350
What kind of similar 
principles can be found

16
00:01:27.350 --> 00:01:33.610
in the assessment of species and ecosystems?
Tytti, would you like to

17
00:01:33.610 --> 00:01:35.920
answer this question?

18
00:01:35.920 --> 00:01:42.830
Well, at least one
similarity, in principle, is that

19
00:01:42.830 --> 00:01:48.720
regarding both species and ecosystems,
changes in quantity are examined, and then

20
00:01:48.720 --> 00:01:54.490
on the other hand, the rarity
of the assessment units is examined.

21
00:01:54.490 --> 00:02:00.270
For species, this means the number of 
individuals or the population size, and then

22
00:02:00.270 --> 00:02:06.480
for ecosystems it usually means the coverage,
or geographic distribution, and changes in it.

23
00:02:06.480 --> 00:02:11.280
And then, the rarity of both species and ecosystems
is determined by examining

24
00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:19.480
their extents of occurrence
and areas of occupancy.

25
00:02:19.480 --> 00:02:21.560
That was a very precise summary.

26
00:02:21.560 --> 00:02:24.870
Does Anne have anything to add?

27
00:02:24.870 --> 00:02:31.970
Well, in a way, the evaluation procedures are
similar, that is, a number of different factors

28
00:02:31.970 --> 00:02:37.590
are examined and then from those factors
the final Red List status is derived.

29
00:02:37.590 --> 00:02:42.180
The threat category is determined by the criterion
that gives the most critical result;

30
00:02:42.180 --> 00:02:45.540
this applies to both species 
and ecosystem assessments.

31
00:02:45.540 --> 00:02:50.520
In the big picture there are
the criteria that are independent and

32
00:02:50.520 --> 00:02:56.920
that all are applied, and in
accordance with the precautionary principle,

33
00:02:56.920 --> 00:03:07.500
the species or the ecosystem is placed in
the category that represents the biggest risk.

34
00:03:07.500 --> 00:03:10.080
When talking about

35
00:03:10.080 --> 00:03:12.330
species and
ecosystem assessments,

36
00:03:12.330 --> 00:03:16.690
there are two 
key concepts, namely

37
00:03:16.690 --> 00:03:21.230
species extinction and ecosystem collapse.

38
00:03:21.230 --> 00:03:24.410
What are these and how are they
different from each other?

39
00:03:24.410 --> 00:03:28.800
Would Ulla-Maija like to explain to us
what species extinction means?

40
00:03:28.800 --> 00:03:33.280
When we talk about species extinction,
we are talking about a global assessment.

41
00:03:33.280 --> 00:03:38.720
So when a species becomes extinct, then

42
00:03:38.720 --> 00:03:42.880
that genetic reserve is gone, it does
not exist anymore.

43
00:03:42.880 --> 00:03:46.700
The species has disappeared and
and it can’t be brought back.

44
00:03:46.700 --> 00:03:50.650
Regionally then, we talk
about regional extinction, that is, 

45
00:03:50.650 --> 00:03:54.720
the species has disappeared
from the assessment area.

46
00:03:54.720 --> 00:04:00.680
Anne and Tytti, who work with ecosystems,

47
00:04:00.680 --> 00:04:06.130
can probably tell about the
equivalent terms in ecosystem red-listing.

48
00:04:06.130 --> 00:04:10.550
But yeah, extinction 
stands for

49
00:04:10.550 --> 00:04:15.230
an irreversible disappearance.

50
00:04:15.230 --> 00:04:19.690
I can begin
with ecosystems.

51
00:04:19.690 --> 00:04:28.860
At its simplest, the collapse of an ecosystem
is also an irreversible, total disappearance.

52
00:04:28.860 --> 00:04:33.730
If you think about something like
destructive land use, let's say mining

53
00:04:33.730 --> 00:04:39.450
or otherwise digging something up:
it’s destroying a ridge or a cliff,

54
00:04:39.450 --> 00:04:43.660
and if that was to be done to all occurrences
of such ridges or cliffs, then you could say that

55
00:04:43.660 --> 00:04:46.320
ecosystem is pretty much completely 
disappeared and therefore it 

56
00:04:46.320 --> 00:04:48.460
is in a state of collapse.

57
00:04:48.460 --> 00:04:52.160
But then again, all ecosystems
don't really behave this way.

58
00:04:52.160 --> 00:04:55.880
If you think
about lakes, for example,

59
00:04:55.880 --> 00:04:59.810
they exist and they remain,
because water always comes from the sky

60
00:04:59.810 --> 00:05:03.370
and flows and gathers to some parts
of the terrain.

61
00:05:03.370 --> 00:05:05.170
But when we red-list

62
00:05:05.170 --> 00:05:09.450
lakes in a threat assessment,
the lake types are defined

63
00:05:09.450 --> 00:05:13.150
according to certain
defining features.

64
00:05:13.150 --> 00:05:19.530
These features include, for example, abiotic
qualities such as the color of water, which

65
00:05:19.530 --> 00:05:24.580
then determines what particular
lake type that lake represents.

66
00:05:24.580 --> 00:05:27.890
So let’s think about
this kind of scenario:

67
00:05:27.890 --> 00:05:33.520
there’s a current trend in Finland,
that lakes are getting more brown.

68
00:05:33.520 --> 00:05:41.180
And if that becomes severe enough
and happens rapidly over large areas

69
00:05:41.180 --> 00:05:45.230
what would happen is
that our clear-water lakes

70
00:05:45.230 --> 00:05:48.690
would all exceed a certain
threshold, and they would

71
00:05:48.690 --> 00:05:51.500
no longer be clear-water lakes.

72
00:05:51.500 --> 00:05:54.950
The lake itself has not vanished
but it has gone beyond

73
00:05:54.950 --> 00:05:58.130
such a threshold that it can no
longer be called the same ecosystem

74
00:05:58.130 --> 00:06:04.830
as before. And then it would have ended up
in the state of collapse that way.

75
00:06:04.830 --> 00:06:11.550
One more thing, about the difference
between the extinction of species 

76
00:06:11.550 --> 00:06:16.650
and the state of collapse
of ecosystems: if

77
00:06:16.650 --> 00:06:22.570
a species becomes extinct globally,
then it can no longer be recovered,

78
00:06:22.570 --> 00:06:27.530
but for ecosystems,
a state of collapse can,

79
00:06:27.530 --> 00:06:31.110
in some cases, be a reversible state.

80
00:06:31.110 --> 00:06:35.980
If the characteristic species of that
ecosystem have persevered in some other place,

81
00:06:35.980 --> 00:06:39.960
then by restoration, that is, by recovering
that ecosystem back to its normal condition,

82
00:06:39.960 --> 00:06:44.960
the collapse can, in some cases,
be reversed.

83
00:06:44.960 --> 00:06:50.320
Could it be put this way: when it comes to
the ecosystems’ state of collapse, it is a bit of

84
00:06:50.320 --> 00:06:55.560
a vague concept, whereas what happens when
a species goes extinct is quite clear?

85
00:06:55.560 --> 00:07:00.100
Yes, for species it's very clear,
but to a very large extent, an ecosystem’s 

86
00:07:00.100 --> 00:07:05.460
state of collapse can be a matter of agreement.
We just have to decide the level that

87
00:07:05.460 --> 00:07:11.940
indicates collapse. For example, in this
lake case, the color of the water 

88
00:07:11.940 --> 00:07:15.980
is a level that is decided by humans.

89
00:07:15.980 --> 00:07:19.860
After the color crosses the boundaries
of this level, then, according to this agreement,

90
00:07:19.860 --> 00:07:24.860
we will not call them
clear-water lakes anymore.

91
00:07:24.860 --> 00:07:29.730
I’ve assessed traditional rural biotopes,
that is, semi-natural habitats,

92
00:07:29.730 --> 00:07:34.800
and they are really
dynamic ecosystems, so

93
00:07:34.800 --> 00:07:38.800
it is typical of them to
transform into other ecosystems.

94
00:07:38.800 --> 00:07:43.820
If we talk about wood-pastures, for example.
What’s defined as their state of collapse,

95
00:07:43.820 --> 00:07:50.640
is when they turn into, say, commercial forest.
But with the right management actions

96
00:07:50.640 --> 00:07:53.790
there may be opportunities

97
00:07:53.790 --> 00:07:56.610
to restore the wood-pasture, but

98
00:07:56.610 --> 00:08:02.960
this is not always possible; the site
can also change so radically 

99
00:08:02.960 --> 00:08:09.950
because of clear-cutting and
other land-uses, that it

100
00:08:09.950 --> 00:08:15.790
can no longer be restored to its
former wood-pasture state.

101
00:08:15.790 --> 00:08:21.550
Anne, do you want to comment
on the concept of ecosystem collapse?

102
00:08:21.550 --> 00:08:25.570
Well, I don’t really have anything to add,
but I could perhaps offer a crystallization:

103
00:08:25.570 --> 00:08:32.930
When it comes to ecosystems, their disappearance
can occur either because their geographic distribution 

104
00:08:32.930 --> 00:08:35.970
has reduced, or because their quality has changed.

105
00:08:35.970 --> 00:08:42.900
And the collapse happening due to a change in
quality can often be difficult to understand.

106
00:08:42.900 --> 00:08:49.430
Are there any other basic differences 
in assessing species or ecosystems?

107
00:08:49.430 --> 00:08:53.270
We went through the similarities
and then made comparisons

108
00:08:53.270 --> 00:08:56.710
between the concepts of 

109
00:08:56.710 --> 00:09:01.860
species extinction and
ecosystem collapse,

110
00:09:01.860 --> 00:09:07.180
but are there any other
key differences

111
00:09:07.180 --> 00:09:10.240
that you would like to point out?

112
00:09:10.240 --> 00:09:15.320
I would add that whereas
ecosystems are being assessed

113
00:09:15.320 --> 00:09:20.200
in terms of qualitative change,
this is not done

114
00:09:20.200 --> 00:09:25.350
with the species, at least
not in a similar way.

115
00:09:25.350 --> 00:09:30.870
For ecosystems,
rarity alone

116
00:09:30.870 --> 00:09:38.090
is not sufficient for qualifying as threatened.

117
00:09:38.090 --> 00:09:43.820
There must always be 
a clear trend of deterioration, too.