scholarly journals The quest for a mechanistic understanding of biodiversity–ecosystem services relationships

2015 ◽  
Vol 282 (1817) ◽  
pp. 20151348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Duncan ◽  
Julian R. Thompson ◽  
Nathalie Pettorelli
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Context Dependency ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Ecological Research ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Species Characteristics ◽  
Policy Agendas ◽  
Research And Policy

Ecosystem services (ES) approaches to biodiversity conservation are currently high on the ecological research and policy agendas. However, despite a wealth of studies into biodiversity's role in maintaining ES (B–ES relationships) across landscapes, we still lack generalities in the nature and strengths of these linkages. Reasons for this are manifold, but can largely be attributed to (i) a lack of adherence to definitions and thus a confusion between final ES and the ecosystem functions (EFs) underpinning them, (ii) a focus on uninformative biodiversity indices and singular hypotheses and (iii) top-down analyses across large spatial scales and overlooking of context-dependency. The biodiversity–ecosystem functioning (B–EF) field provides an alternate context for examining biodiversity's mechanistic role in shaping ES, focusing on species' characteristics that may drive EFs via multiple mechanisms across contexts. Despite acknowledgements of a need for B–ES research to look towards underlying B–EF linkages, the connections between these areas of research remains weak. With this review, we pull together recent B–EF findings to identify key areas for future developments in B–ES research. We highlight a means by which B–ES research may begin to identify how and when multiple underlying B–EF relationships may scale to final ES delivery and trade-offs.

scholarly journals Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (45) ◽  
pp. eaba1715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Tamburini ◽  
Riccardo Bommarco ◽  
Thomas Cherico Wanger ◽  
Claire Kremen ◽  
Marcel G. A. van der Heijden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Nutrient Cycling ◽  
Soil Fertility ◽  
Pest Control ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Context Dependency ◽  
Water Regulation ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Impact

Enhancing biodiversity in cropping systems is suggested to promote ecosystem services, thereby reducing dependency on agronomic inputs while maintaining high crop yields. We assess the impact of several diversification practices in cropping systems on above- and belowground biodiversity and ecosystem services by reviewing 98 meta-analyses and performing a second-order meta-analysis based on 5160 original studies comprising 41,946 comparisons between diversified and simplified practices. Overall, diversification enhances biodiversity, pollination, pest control, nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and water regulation without compromising crop yields. Practices targeting aboveground biodiversity boosted pest control and water regulation, while those targeting belowground biodiversity enhanced nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and water regulation. Most often, diversification practices resulted in win-win support of services and crop yields. Variability in responses and occurrence of trade-offs highlight the context dependency of outcomes. Widespread adoption of diversification practices shows promise to contribute to biodiversity conservation and food security from local to global scales.

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>

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 Mapping Agricultural Ecosystem Services across Scales

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubhechchha Sharma ◽  
Jennifer Hodbod ◽  
Emma Tebbs ◽  
Kristofer Chan
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Economic Valuation ◽  
Temporal Distribution ◽  
User Preference ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Agricultural Ecosystem ◽  
Land Use Patterns ◽  
Trade Offs

Given the cross-scale interactions of agricultural ecosystems, it is important to collect ecosystem service data at the multiple spatial scales they operate at. Mapping of ecosystem services helps to assess their spatial and temporal distribution and is a popular communication tool of their availability and value. For example, maps can be used to quantify distance between areas of available ecosystem services and their beneficiaries and how services fluctuate with changes in land use patterns over time, allowing identification of synergies and trade-offs. However, a lack of local context and too large a resolution can reduce the utility of these maps, whilst masking heterogeneities in access due to equity dynamics. This review identifies and summarizes eight main methods of ESS mapping found in the literature—remote sensing, biophysical modelling, agent based modelling, economic valuation, expert opinion, user preference, participatory mapping, and photo-elicitation. We consider what spatial scales these methods are utilized at and the transferability of data created by each method. The analysis concludes with a methodological framework for mapping ecosystem services, intended to help researchers identify appropriate methods for a multi-scale research design. The framework is exemplified with an overview of a research project in Ethiopia.

scholarly journals Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture: Outcomes from pastures and integrated crop–livestock systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt A. Sanderson ◽  
David Archer ◽  
John Hendrickson ◽  
Scott Kronberg ◽  
Mark Liebig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Livestock Production ◽  
Soil Disturbance ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Agricultural Systems ◽  
Soil C ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Forage Diversity ◽  
Integrated Agricultural Systems

AbstractConservation agricultural systems rely on three principles to enhance ecosystem services: (1) minimizing soil disturbance, (2) maximizing soil surface cover and (3) stimulating biological activity. In this paper, we explore the concept of diversity and its role in maximizing ecosystem services from managed grasslands and integrated agricultural systems (i.e., integrated crop–livestock–forage systems) at the field and farm level. We also examine trade-offs that may be involved in realizing greater ecosystem services. Previous research on livestock production systems, particularly in pastureland, has shown improvements in herbage productivity and reduced weed invasion with increased forage diversity but little response in terms of animal production. Managing forage diversity in pastureland requires new tools to guide the selection and placement of plant mixtures across a farm according to site suitability and the goals of the producer. Integrated agricultural systems embrace the concept of dynamic cropping systems, which incorporates a long-term strategy of annual crop sequencing that optimizes crop and soil use options to attain production, economic and resource conservation goals by using sound ecological management principles. Integrating dynamic cropping systems with livestock production increases the complexity of management, but also creates synergies among system components that may improve resilience and sustainability while fulfilling multiple ecosystem functions. Diversified conservation agricultural systems can sustain crop and livestock production and provide additional ecosystem services such as soil C storage, efficient nutrient cycling and conservation of biodiversity.

scholarly journals Economic and ecological trade-off analysis of forest ecosystems: options for boreal forests

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Si Chen ◽  
Chander Shahi ◽  
Han Y.H. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Forest Ecosystem ◽  
Boreal Forests ◽  
Sustainable Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Ecological Functions ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Trade Offs

Intensive forest management practices for production forestry can potentially impact the sustainability of ecological functions and associated forest ecosystem services. Understanding the trade-offs between economic gains and ecological losses is critical for the sustainable management of forest resources. However, economic and ecological trade-offs are typically uncertain, vary at temporal and spatial scales, and are difficult to measure. Moreover, the methods used to quantify economic and ecological trade-offs might have conflicting priorities. We reviewed the most current published literature related to trade-off analysis between economic gains and sustainability of forest ecosystem functions and associated services, and we found that most economic and ecological trade-offs studies were conducted in tropical and temperate forests, with few having their focus on boreal forests. Analytical methods of these published studies included monetary valuation, biophysical models, optimization programming, production possibility frontier, and multi-objective optimization. This review has identified the knowledge gaps in the understanding and measurement of the economic and ecological trade-offs for the sustainable management of boreal forests. While it remains uncertain how economic activities might best maintain and support multiple ecological functions and associated services in the boreal forests, which are susceptible to climate change and disturbances, we propose the use of optimization methods employing multiple objectives. For any tool to provide sustainable and optimal forest management solutions, we propose that appropriate and robust data must be collected and analyzed.

scholarly journals On the functional relationship between biodiversity and economic value

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. eaax7712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carola Paul ◽  
Nick Hanley ◽  
Sebastian T. Meyer ◽  
Christine Fürst ◽  
Wolfgang W. Weisser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Utility Function ◽  
Functional Relationship ◽  
Functional Form ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Human Welfare ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Managed Ecosystems

Biodiversity’s contribution to human welfare has become a key argument for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity in managed ecosystems. The functional relationship between biodiversity (b) and economic value (V) is, however, insufficiently understood, despite the premise of a positive-concave bV relationship that dominates scientific and political arenas. Here, we review how individual links between biodiversity, ecosystem functions (F), and services affect resulting bV relationships. Our findings show that bV relationships are more variable, also taking negative-concave/convex or strictly concave and convex forms. This functional form is driven not only by the underlying bF relationship but also by the number and type of ecosystem services and their potential trade-offs considered, the effects of inputs, and the type of utility function used to represent human preferences. Explicitly accounting for these aspects will enhance the substance and coverage of future valuation studies and allow more nuanced conclusions, particularly for managed ecosystems.

scholarly journals Management to Support Multiple Ecosystem Services from Productive Grasslands

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6263
Author(s):  
Joanna Savage ◽  
Ben A. Woodcock ◽  
James M. Bullock ◽  
Marek Nowakowski ◽  
Jeremy R. B. Tallowin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Food Resources ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Plant Functional Groups ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Farmland Birds ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Pollinator Abundance ◽  
Trade Offs

Sustainable intensification will require the development of new management systems to support global food demands, whilst conserving the integrity of ecosystem functions. Here, we test and identify management strategies to maintain or enhance agricultural production in grasslands whilst simultaneously supporting the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Over four years, we investigated how the establishment of three plant functional groups (grasses, legumes, and other flowering forbs), using different cultivation (minimum tillage and deep ploughing) and management (cutting, grazing and their intensity) techniques, affected provision and complementarity between key ecosystem services. These ecosystem services were agronomic production, pollination, pest control, food resources for farmland birds, and soil services. We found that the establishment of floristically diverse swards, particularly those containing grasses, legumes and forbs, maximised forage yield and quality, pollinator abundance, soil nitrogen, and bird food resources, as well as enhancing populations of natural predators of pests. Cutting management increased bird food resources and natural predators of pests without depleting other services considered. However, a single management solution to maximise the delivery of all ecosystem services is unlikely to exist, as trade-offs also occurred. Consequently, management options may need to be tailored to strategically support localised deficits in key ecosystem services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document