Novel ecosystems are human-built, modified, or engineered niches of the Anthropocene. They exist in places that have been altered in structure and function by human agency. Novel ecosystems are part of the human environment and niche (including urban, suburban, and rural), they lack natural analogs, and they have extended an influence that has converted more than three-quarters of wild Earth. These anthropogenic biomes include technoecosystems that are fuelled by powerful energy sources (fossil and nuclear) including ecosystems populated with technodiversity, such as roads and unique combinations of soils called technosols. Vegetation associations on old buildings or along field boundary stone walls in old agricultural landscapes are examples of sites where research into novel ecosystem ecology is developing.
Human society has transformed the planet to such an extent that we may have ushered in a new epoch known as the Anthropocene. The ecological niche of the anthropocene contains entirely novel ecosystems that include technosols, technodiversity, anthromes, and the technosphere. These terms describe the human ecological phenomena marking this unique turn in the evolution of Earth's history. The total human ecosystem (or anthrome) describes the relationship of the industrial technosphere to the ecosphere.
Technoecosystems interface with natural life-supporting ecosystems in competitive and parasitic ways.  Odum (2001)  attributes this term to a 1982 publication by Zev Naveh: "Current urban-industrial society not only impacts natural life-support ecosystems, but also has created entirely new arrangements that we can call techno-ecosystems, a term I believe was first suggested by Zev Neveh (1982). These new systems involve new, powerful energy sources (fossil and atomic fuels), technology, money, and cities that have little or no parallels in nature.":137 The term technoecosystem, however, appears earliest in print in a 1976 technical report and also appears in a book chapter (see  in Lamberton and Thomas (1982) written by Kenneth E. Boulding).
Novel ecosystems "differ in composition and/or function from present and past systems". Novel ecosystems are the hallmark of the recently proposed anthropocene epoch. They have no natural analogs due to human alterations on global climate systems, invasive species, a global mass extinction, and disruption of the global nitrogen cycle. Novel ecosystems are creating many different kinds of dilemmas for conservation biologists. On a more local scale, abandoned lots, agricultural land, old buildings, or field boundary stone walls provide study sites on the history and dynamics of ecology in novel ecosystems.
Ellis (2008) identifies twenty-one different kinds of anthropogenic biomes that sort into the following groups: 1) dense settlements, 2) villages, 3) croplands, 4) rangeland, 5) forested, and 6) wildlands. These anthropogenic biomes (or anthromes for short) create the technosphere that surrounds us and are populated with diverse technologies (or technodiversity for short). Within these anthromes the human species (one species out of billions) appropriates 23.8% of the global net primary production. "This is a remarkable impact on the biosphere caused by just one species." 
Noosphere (sometimes noösphere) is the "sphere of human thought". The word is derived from the Greek νοῦς (nous "mind") + σφαῖρα (sphaira "sphere"), in lexical analogy to "atmosphere" and "biosphere". Introduced by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin 1922  in his Cosmogenesis". Another possibility is the first use of the term by Édouard Le Roy, who together with Chardin was listening to lectures of Vladimir Vernadsky at Sorbonne. In 1936 Vernadsky presented on the idea of the Noosphere in a letter to Boris Leonidovich Lichkov (though, he states that the concept derives from Le Roy).
The technosphere is the part of the environment on Earth where technodiversity extends its influence into the biosphere. "For the development of suitable restoration strategies, a clear distinction has to be made between different functional classes of natural and cultural solar-powered biosphere and fossil-powered technosphere landscapes, according to their inputs and throughputs of energy and materials, their organisms, their control by natural or human information, their internal self-organization and their regenerative capacities."
The concept of technoecosystems has been pioneered by ecologists Howard T. Odum and Zev Naveh. Technoecosystems interface with and are competitive toward natural systems. They have advanced technology (or technodiversity) money-based market economies and have a large ecological footprints. Technoecosystems have far greater energy requirements than natural ecosystems, excessive water consumption, and release toxic and eutrophicating chemicals. Other ecologists have defined the extensive global network of road systems as a type of technoecosystem.
"Bio-agro- and techno-ecotopes are spatially integrated in larger, regional landscape units, but they are not structurally and functionally integrated in the ecosphere. Because of the adverse impacts of the latter and the great human pressures on bio-ecotopes, they are even antagonistically related and therefore cannot function together as a coherent, sustainable ecological system.":136
Technosols are a new form of soil group in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB). Technosols are " mainly characterised by anthropogenic parent material of organic and mineral nature and which origin can be either natural or technogenic.":537
- Odum, E. P.; Barrett, G. W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology. Brooks Cole. p. 598. ISBN 978-0-534-42066-6.
- Stairs, D. "Biophilia and technophilia: Examining the nature/culture split in design theory.". Design Issues 13 (3): 37–44. doi:10.2307/1511939. JSTOR 1511939.
- Lugoa, A. E.; Gucinski, H. "Function, effects, and management of forest roads.". Forest Ecology and Management 133 (3): 249–262. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(99)00237-6.
- Barrett, G. W.; Odum, E. P. "The twenty-first century: The world at carrying capacity.". Bioscience 50 (4): 363–368. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0363:TTFCTW]2.3.CO;2.
- Ellis, E. C. (2011). "Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere.". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369 (1938): 1010–1035. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369.1010E. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0331. PMID 21282158.
- Blersh, D. M.; Kangas, P. C. "Autonomous behavior of a wetland soil technoecosystem.". Environmental Engineering Science 23 (2): 156–166.
- Odum, E. P. (2001). "The "Techno-Ecosystem".". Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82 (2): 137–138. JSTOR 20168542.
- Duffield, C. (1976), Geothermical technoecosystems and water cycles in arid lands., University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies, p. 202
- Wyatt, G. J. (1984). "Book Reviews". The Economic Journal 94 (375): 696–721. JSTOR 2232737.
- Laberton, M. S.; Thomas, M., eds. (1983). "Technology in the evolutionary process.". The trouble with technology. Explorations in the process of technological change. London: Frances Pinter. p. 224. ISBN 0-312-81985-4.
- Marris, E. (2009). "Ragamuffin Earth". Nature 460: 450–453. doi:10.1038/460450a.
- Hobbs, R. J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J. A. (2009). "Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (11): 599–605. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012.
- Jackson, S. T.; Hobbs, R. J. (2009). "Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history". Science 325 (5940): 567–569. Bibcode:2009Sci...325..567J. doi:10.1126/science.1172977.
- Seastedt, T. R.; Hobbs, R. J.; Suding, K. N. (2008). "Management of novel ecosystems: Are novel approaches required?". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (10): 547–553. doi:10.1890/070046.
- Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Chapin; Lambin, E. F.; Lenton, T. M. et al. (September 2009). "A safe operating space for humanity". Nature 461 (7263): 472–475. Bibcode:2009Natur.461..472R. doi:10.1038/461472a. PMID 19779433.
- Lindenmayer, D. B.; Fischer, J.; Felton, A.; Crane, M.; Michael, D.; Macgregor, C. et al. "Novel ecosystems resulting from landscape transformation create dilemmas for modern conservation practice". Conservation Letters 1 (3): 129–135. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00021.x.
- Collier, M. J. (2012). "Field boundary stone walls as exemplars of "novel" ecosystems". Landscape Research: 1–10. doi:10.1080/01426397.2012.682567.
- Ellis, E. C.; Ramankutty, N. (2008). "Putting people in the map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 439–447. doi:10.1890/070062.
- Haber, H.; Erb, H.; Krausmann, F.; Gaube, V.; Bondeau, A.; Plutzar, C. et al. "Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems". PNAS 104 (31): 12942–12947. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10412942H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704243104. PMC 1911196. PMID 17616580.
- Georgy S. Levit: The Biosphere and the Noosphere Theories of V. I. Vernadsky and P. Teilhard de Chardin: A Methodological Essay. International Archives on the History of Science/Archives Internationales D'Histoire des Sciences, 50 (144) - 2000: S. 160-176 http://www2.uni-jena.de/biologie/ehh/personal/glevit/Teilhard.pdf
- "[...]he defined noosphere as the 'thinking envelope of the biosphere' and the 'conscious unity of souls'" David H. Lane, 1996, "The phenomenon of Teilhard: prophet for a new age" p.4 http://books.google.com/books?id=QrwityQkdxkC
- In 1922, Teilhard wrote in an essay with the title 'Hominization': "And this amounts to imagining, in one way or another, above the animal biosphere a human sphere, a sphere of reflection, of conscious invention, of conscious souls (the noosphere, if you will)" (1966, p. 63) It was a neologism employing the Greek word noos for "mind." ( Teilhard de Chardin, "Hominization" (1923), "The Vision of the Past" pages 71,230,261 http://books.google.com/books?id=GnwPAQAAIAAJ )
- Tambov State Technical University: http://www.tstu.ru/win/kultur/nauka/vernad/uchver.htm, in English
- Palm, V.; Östlund, C. (1996). "Lead and zinc flows from technosphere to biosphere in a city region". Science of the Total Environment 192 (1): 95–109. doi:10.1016/0048-9697(96)05301-6.
- FOA (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2006), "World reference base for soil resources 2006. A framework for international classification, correlation and communication", World Soil Resour Rep (2nd ed.) 132: 145
- Monserie, M.; Watteau, F.; Villemin, G.; Ouvrard, S.; Morel, J. (2009). "Technosol genesis: identification of organo-mineral associations in a young Technosol derived from coking plant waste materials". J Soils Sediments 9: 537–546. doi:10.1007/s11368-009-0084-y.
- Cooper, B. (2000). "Modelling research and development: How do firms solve design problems?". Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10 (4): 395–413. doi:10.1007/s001910000040.
- Sorensen, K. H.; Williams, R., eds. (2002). Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. p. 404. ISBN 1-84064-649-7.
- Adams, C. (2009). "Applied catalysis: A predictive socioeconomic history". Topics in Catalysis 52 (8): 924–934. doi:10.1007/s11244-009-9251-z.
- Sandén, B. A.; Azar, C (2005). "Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets—economy wide versus technology specific approaches". Energy Policy 33 (12): 1557–1576. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.012.
- Williams, R.; Sörensen, K. H., eds. (2002). "The cultural shaping of technologies and the politics of technodiversity.". Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces & Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. pp. 173–194. ISBN 1-84064-649-7.