Ecosystems generate a range of goods and services important for human well-being, collectively called ecosystem services. Over the past decade, progress has been made in understanding how ecosystems provide services and how service provision translates into economic value (Daily 1997; MA 2005; NRC 2005). Yet, it has proven difficult to move from general pronouncements about the tremendous benefits nature provides to people to credible, quantitative estimates of ecosystem service values. Spatially explicit values of services across landscapes that might inform land-use and management decisions are still lacking (Balmford et al. 2002; MA 2005).Without quantitative assessments, and some incentives for landowners to provide them, these services tend to be ignored by those making land-use and land-management decisions. Currently, there are two paradigms for generating ecosystem service assessments that are meant to influence policy decisions. Under the first paradigm, researchers use broad-scale assessments of multiple services to extrapolate a few estimates of values, based on habitat types, to entire regions or the entire planet (eg Costanza et al. 1997;Troy and Wilson 2006;Turner et al. 2007). Although simple, this "benefits transfer" approach incorrectly assumes that every hectare of a given habitat type is of equal value -regardless of its quality, rarity, spatial configuration, size, proximity to population centers, or the prevailing social practices and values. Furthermore, this approach does not allow for analyses of service provision and changes in value under new conditions. For example, if a wetland is converted to agricultural land, how will this affect the provision of clean drinking water, downstream flooding, climate regulation, and soil fertility? Without information on the impacts of land-use management practices on ecosystem services production, it is impossible to design policies or payment programs that will provide the desired ecosystem services.In contrast, under the second paradigm for generating policy-relevant ecosystem service assessments, researchers carefully model the production of a single service in a small area with an "ecological production function" -how provision of that service depends on local ecological variables (eg Kaiser and Roumasset 2002;Ricketts et al. 2004). Some of these production function approaches also use market prices and non-market valuation methods to estimate the economic value of the service and how that value changes under different ecological conditions. Although these methods are superior to the habitat assessment benefits transfer approach, these studies lack both the scope (number of services) and scale (geographic and temporal) to be relevant for most policy questions.What is needed are approaches that combine the rigor of the small-scale studies with the breadth of broad-scale assessments (see Boody et Nature provides a wide range of benefits to people. There is increasing consensus about the importance of incorporating these "ecosystem services" into r...

Water availability limits plant growth and production in almost all terrestrial ecosystems. However, biomes differ substantially in sensitivity of aboveground net primary production (ANPP) to between-year variation in precipitation. Average rain-use efficiency (RUE; ANPP/precipitation) also varies between biomes, supposedly because of differences in vegetation structure and/or biogeochemical constraints. Here we show that RUE decreases across biomes as mean annual precipitation increases. However, during the driest years at each site, there is convergence to a common maximum RUE (RUE(max)) that is typical of arid ecosystems. RUE(max) was also identified by experimentally altering the degree of limitation by water and other resources. Thus, in years when water is most limiting, deserts, grasslands and forests all exhibit the same rate of biomass production per unit rainfall, despite differences in physiognomy and site-level RUE. Global climate models predict increased between-year variability in precipitation, more frequent extreme drought events, and changes in temperature. Forecasts of future ecosystem behaviour should take into account this convergent feature of terrestrial biomes.

Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services—crop pollination and forage production—eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.

No abstract

Climate change is expected to impact ecosystems directly, such as through shifting climatic controls on species ranges, and indirectly, for example through changes in human land use that may result in habitat loss. Shifting patterns of agricultural production in response to climate change have received little attention as a potential impact pathway for ecosystems. Wine grape production provides a good test case for measuring indirect impacts mediated by changes in agriculture, because viticulture is sensitive to climate and is concentrated in Mediterranean climate regions that are global biodiversity hotspots. Here we demonstrate that, on a global scale, the impacts of climate change on viticultural suitability are substantial, leading to possible conservation conflicts in land use and freshwater ecosystems. Area suitable for viticulture decreases 25% to 73% in major wine producing regions by 2050 in the higher RCP 8.5 concentration pathway and 19% to 62% in the lower RCP 4.5. Climate change may cause establishment of vineyards at higher elevations that will increase impacts on upland ecosystems and may lead to conversion of natural vegetation as production shifts to higher latitudes in areas such as western North America. Attempts to maintain wine grape productivity and quality in the face of warming may be associated with increased water use for irrigation and to cool grapes through misting or sprinkling, creating potential for freshwater conservation impacts. Agricultural adaptation and conservation efforts are needed that anticipate these multiple possible indirect effects.