Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lal
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Soil Depth ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Water Retention Capacity ◽  
No Till ◽  
Trade Offs

AbstractEcosystem functions and services provided by soils depend on land use and management. The objective of this article is to review and synthesize relevant information on the impacts of no-till (NT) management of croplands on ecosystem functions and services. Sustainable management of soil through NT involves: (i) replacing what is removed, (ii) restoring what has been degraded, and (iii) minimizing on-site and off-site effects. Despite its merits, NT is adopted on merely ∼9% of the 1.5 billion ha of global arable land area. Soil's ecosystem services depend on the natural capital (soil organic matter and clay contents, soil depth and water retention capacity) and its management. Soil management in various agro-ecosystems to enhance food production has some trade-offs/disservices (i.e., decline in biodiversity, accelerated erosion and non-point source pollution), which must be minimized by further developing agricultural complexity to mimic natural ecosystems. However, adoption of NT accentuates many ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity, elemental cycling, and resilience to natural and anthropogenic perturbations, all of which can affect food security. Links exist among diverse ecosystem services, such that managing one can adversely impact others. For example, increasing agronomic production can reduce biodiversity and deplete soil organic carbon (SOC), harvesting crop residues for cellulosic ethanol can reduce SOC, etc. Undervaluing ecosystem services can jeopardize finite soil resources and aggravate disservices. Adoption of recommended management practices can be promoted through payments for ecosystem services by a market-based approach so that risks of disservices and negative costs can be reduced either through direct economic incentives or as performance payments.

scholarly journals LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT: CASE STUDY OF TEHRAN AND HIS KAN RIVER

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilda Vagge ◽  
◽  
Gioia Maddalena Gibelli ◽  
Alessio Gosetti Poli ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Landscape Design ◽  
Green Spaces ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Design For Sustainability ◽  
Holistic Method

The authors, with the awareness that climate change affects and changes the landscape, wanted to investigate how these changes are occurring within the metropolitan area of Tehran. Trying to keep a holistic method that embraces different disciplines, reasoning from large scale to small scale, the authors tried to study the main problems related to water scarcity and loss of green spaces. Subsequently they dedicated themselves to the identification of the present and missing ecosystem services, so that they could be used in the best possible way as tools for subsequent design choices. From the analysis obtained, the authors have created a masterplan with the desire to ensure a specific natural capital, the welfare of ecosystem services, and at the same time suggest good water management practices. It becomes essential to add an ecological accounting to the economic accounting, giving dignity to the natural system and the ecosystem services that derive from it.

Ecosystem services

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 575-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion B. Potschin ◽  
Roy H. Haines-Young
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Physical Geography ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Puzzle Solving ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Stocks And Flows ◽  
Change Impact

The ‘ecosystem service’ debate has taken on many features of a classic Kuhnian paradigm. It challenges conventional wisdoms about conservation and the value of nature, and is driven as much by political agendas as scientific ones. In this paper we review some current and emerging issues arising in relation to the analysis and assessment of ecosystem services, and in particular emphasize the need for physical geographers to find new ways of characterizing the structure and dynamics of service providing units. If robust and relevant valuations are to be made of the contribution that natural capital makes to human well-being, then we need a deeper understanding of the way in which the drivers of change impact on the marginal outputs of ecosystem services. A better understanding of the trade-offs that need to be considered when dealing with multifunctional ecosystems is also required. Future developments must include methods for describing and tracking the stocks and flows that characterize natural capital. This will support valuation of the benefits estimation of the level of reinvestment that society must make in this natural capital base if it is to be sustained. We argue that if the ecosystem service concept is to be used seriously as a framework for policy and management then the biophysical sciences generally, and physical geography in particular, must go beyond the uncritical ‘puzzle solving’ that characterizes recent work. A geographical perspective can provide important new, critical insights into the place-based approaches to ecosystem assessment that are now emerging.

Ecosystem Services

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon C. Braat
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Nature Management ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Policy And Planning

The concept of ecosystem services considers the usefulness of nature for human society. The economic importance of nature was described and analyzed in the 18th century, but the term ecosystem services was introduced only in 1981. Since then it has spurred an increasing number of academic publications, international research projects, and policy studies. Now a subject of intense debate in the global scientific community, from the natural to social science domains, it is also used, developed, and customized in policy arenas and considered, if in a still somewhat skeptical and apprehensive way, in the “practice” domain—by nature management agencies, farmers, foresters, and corporate business. This process of bridging evident gaps between ecology and economics, and between nature conservation and economic development, has also been felt in the political arena, including in the United Nations and the European Union (which have placed it at the center of their nature conservation and sustainable use strategies). The concept involves the utilitarian framing of those functions of nature that are used by humans and considered beneficial to society as economic and social services. In this light, for example, the disappearance of biodiversity directly affects ecosystem functions that underpin critical services for human well-being. More generally, the concept can be defined in this manner: Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems, in interaction with contributions from human society, to human well-being. The concept underpins four major discussions: (1) Academic: the ecological versus the economic dimensions of the goods and services that flow from ecosystems to the human economy; the challenge of integrating concepts and models across this paradigmatic divide; (2) Social: the risks versus benefits of bringing the utilitarian argument into political debates about nature conservation (Are ecosystem services good or bad for biodiversity and vice versa?); (3) Policy and planning: how to value the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services (Will this improve decision-making on topics ranging from poverty alleviation via subsidies to farmers to planning of grey with green infrastructure to combining economic growth with nature conservation?); and (4) Practice: Can revenue come from smart management and sustainable use of ecosystems? Are there markets to be discovered and can businesses be created? How do taxes figure in an ecosystem-based economy? The outcomes of these discussions will both help to shape policy and planning of economies at global, national, and regional scales and contribute to the long-term survival and well-being of humanity.

Trade-offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services in Karst Area of China Driven by Grain-for-Green Program

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaofeng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Net Primary Production ◽  
Karst Area ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Water Yield ◽  
Natural Ecosystem ◽  
Grain For Green ◽  
Grain For Green Program ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Impact

<p>As an important means regulating the relationship between human and natural ecosystem, ecological restoration program plays a key role in restoring ecosystem functions. The Grain-for-Green Program (GFGP, One of the world’s most ambitious ecosystem conservation set-aside programs aims to transfer farmland on steep slopes to forestland or grassland to increase vegetation coverage) has been widely implemented from 1999 to 2015 and exerted significant influence on land use and ecosystem services (ESs). In this study, three ecological models (InVEST, RUSLE, and CASA) were used to accurately calculate the three key types of ESs, water yield (WY), soil conservation (SC), and net primary production (NPP) in Karst area of southwestern China from 1982 to 2015. The impact of GFGP on ESs and trade-offs was analyzed. It provides practical guidance in carrying out ecological regulation in Karst area of China under global climate change. Results showed that ESs and trade-offs had changed dramatically driven by GFGP . In detail, temporally, SC and NPP exhibited an increasing trend, while WY exhibited a decreasing trend. Spatially, SC basically decreased from west to east; NPP basically increased from north to south; WY basically increased from west to east; NPP and SC, SC and WY developed in the direction of trade-offs driven by the GFGP, while NPP and WY developed in the direction of synergy. Therefore, future ecosystem management and restoration policy-making should consider trade-offs of ESs so as to achieve sustainable provision of ESs.</p>

scholarly journals Participatory Mapping of Demand for Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes

Agriculture ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 1193
Author(s):  
Carmen Schwartz ◽  
Mostafa Shaaban ◽  
Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura ◽  
Annette Piorr
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
The Body ◽  
Poor Correlation ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Stakeholder Workshop

Agricultural land use systems have been optimized for producing provisioning ecosystem services (ES) in the past few decades, often at the expense of regulating and cultural services. Research has focused mainly on the supply side of ES and related trade-offs, but the demand side for regulatory services remains largely neglected. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of participatory geographic information system (PGIS) methods for demand assessment in larger rural and agrarian contexts by identifying spatially explicit demand patterns for ES, thereby enlarging the body of participatory approaches to ES-based land use management. Accordingly, we map, assess, and statistically and spatially analyze different demands for five ES by different stakeholder groups in agricultural landscapes in three case studies. The results are presented in a stakeholder workshop and prerequisites for collaborative ES management are discussed. Our results show that poor correlation exists between stakeholder groups and demands for ES; however, arable land constitutes the highest share of the mapped area of demands for the five ES. These results have been validated by both the survey and the stakeholder workshop. Our study concludes that PGIS represents a useful tool to link demand assessments and landscape management systematically, especially for decision support systems.

scholarly journals Ecological illiteracy can deepen farmers' pesticide dependency

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Wyckhuys ◽  
KL Heong ◽  
Francisco Sanchez-Bayo ◽  
Felix Bianchi ◽  
Jonathan Lundgren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Global Environmental Change ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Biodiversity Loss ◽  
Ecological Literacy ◽  
Ecological Concepts ◽  
Knowledge Intensive

Over 2.5 billion smallholders cultivate the world’s arable land, strategically positioned to tackle multiple Anthropocene challenges. When consciously adopting ecologically-based pest management practices, they can improve resource use efficiency, slow biodiversity loss, resolve environmental pollution and safeguard human health. Yet, the effective implementation of knowledge-intensive management practices requires underlying ecological concepts to be well-understood. Here, drawing upon published social science research spanning 1910-2016, we illuminate deficiencies in the world’s farmers’ ecological literacy and in their valuation of insect-mediated ecosystem services. Though tribal people and indigenous folk possess sophisticated knowledge of insects that occur within farm settings, contemporary farmers know a mere 2.0 pestiferous herbivores and 0.8 pest-killing organisms (out of a respective 8 and 3 taxa). Ecosystem services such as biological control are annually worth hundreds of dollars ha-1 but remain unknown to nearly 70% of farmers globally. Also, agricultural systems with deficient ecological literacy tend to foster a greater dependency upon chemically-synthesized pesticides. If this ‘cognitive handicap’ can be remediated, farmers could become biodiversity stewards and champions in redressing multiple aspects of global environmental change.

scholarly journals ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR PLANNING OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 315
Author(s):  
Maija Ušča ◽  
Ivo Vinogradovs ◽  
Agnese Reķe ◽  
Dāvis Valters Immurs ◽  
Anita Zariņa
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Distribution ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Green Infrastructure ◽  
Hot Spots ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Supply Potential

Ecosystem services (ES) are defined as the benefits that human beings derive from ecosystem functions. Assessment and mapping of these benefits are crucial for sustainable environmental planning and future natural capital. Green infrastructure (GI) is natural or semi-natural territories that provide wide range of ES. Human affected ecosystems tend to fail to provide certain sets of ES due to the trade-offs among those services, which could be mitigated through implementation of GI. Mapping of ES, as well as assessing the interactions among various ES and analysing their supply potential’s cold/hot spots considerably enhances and substantiates the planning process of GI, particularly at the regional scale and for the territories with diverse landscape potential. The aim of this paper is to discuss the assessment of ES supply potential and analyse its spatial distribution to reveal cold/hot spots of ecosystem capacity to provide wide range services and functions for GI. The study presents GIS based assessment of ES in a case study of Zemgale Planning Region. ES supply potential was assessed for 27 Corine land use classes (CLC2018) together with 10 regulatory, 12 provisioning and 6 cultural ES. An expert-based ranking approach using a two-dimensional ES matrix and a geospatial analysis was applied to determine total ES supply potential, spatial patterns and relations among multiple ES. Additional statistical analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) was performed on spatial distribution of regulatory ES to disclose statistically significant capacity of ecosystems to function as GI in given surroundings. Preliminary results show uneven distribution of ES, trade-offs between regulatory and provisioning ES and landscape dependent spatial clustering of these trade-offs supported by result of Getis-Ord Gi* analysis, thus laying a foundation for further planning of GI at the regional scale.

scholarly journals Science–Policy Interfaces Related to Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: The Case of Natural Capital Germany—TEEB-DE

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 3701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Leibenath ◽  
Markus Kurth ◽  
Gerd Lintz
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Conceptual Foundation ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Science Policy Interface ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Normative Criteria

Responding to the UN programme “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB), TEEB-DE (2012–2018) was a science–policy interface (SPI) set up in Germany with the objective of mobilising scientific expertise for a better consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in political and corporate decision-making. The aim of this paper is to contribute to an assessment of TEEB-DE by analysing its objectives, structure, processes and outputs. The analysis is guided by a theoretical framework that takes credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE) as normative criteria for examining SPIs. Methodologically, the paper relies on a fine-grained analysis of published documents and interviews with key figures of TEEB-DE. The results allow for a preliminary assessment of TEEB-DE in regard to CRELE and illuminate how its conceptual foundation—namely the ecosystem services concept—was discussed in the public realm. We also consider a number of trade-offs which the coordinators of TEEB-DE had to negotiate. In conclusion, we identify some proposals for designing future SPIs in the domain of biodiversity and nature conservation in Germany such as paying greater attention to policy windows, broadening the thematic scope beyond economics and providing better opportunities for debate and contestation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document