No abstract

We describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosystem services and respective counter‐arguments. First, the concept is criticized for being anthropocentric, whereas others argue that it goes beyond instrumental values. Second, some argue that the concept promotes an exploitative human–nature relationship, whereas others state that it reconnects society to ecosystems, emphasizing humanity's dependence on nature. Third, concerns exist that the concept may conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives, whereas others emphasize complementarity. Fourth, the concept is questioned because of its supposed focus on economic valuation, whereas others argue that ecosystem services science includes many values. Fifth, the concept is criticized for promoting commodification of nature, whereas others point out that most ecosystem services are not connected to market‐based instruments. Sixth, vagueness of definitions and classifications are stated to be a weakness, whereas others argue that vagueness enhances transdisciplinary collaboration. Seventh, some criticize the normative nature of the concept, implying that all outcomes of ecosystem processes are desirable. The normative nature is indeed typical for the concept, but should not be problematic when acknowledged. By disentangling and contrasting different arguments we hope to contribute to a more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem services concept.

Summary 1.In many European agricultural landscapes, species richness is declining considerably. Studies performed at a very large spatial scale are helpful in understanding the reasons for this decline and as a basis for guiding policy. In a unique, large-scale study of 25 agricultural landscapes in seven European countries, we investigated relationships between species richness in several taxa, and the links between biodiversity and landscape structure and management. 2. We estimated the total species richness of vascular plants, birds and five arthropod groups in each 16-km 2 landscape, and recorded various measures of both landscape structure and intensity of agricultural land use. We studied correlations between taxonomic groups and the effects of landscape and land-use parameters on the number of species in different taxonomic groups. Our statistical approach also accounted for regional variation in species richness unrelated to landscape or land-use factors. 3. The results reveal strong geographical trends in species richness in all taxonomic groups. No single species group emerged as a good predictor of all other species groups. Species richness of all groups increased with the area of semi-natural habitats in the landscape. Species richness of birds and vascular plants was negatively associated with fertilizer use. 4. Synthesis and applications. We conclude that indicator taxa are unlikely to provide an effective means of predicting biodiversity at a large spatial scale, especially where there is large biogeographical variation in species richness. However, a small list of landscape and land-use parameters can be used in agricultural landscapes to infer large-scale patterns of species richness. Our results suggest that to halt the loss of biodiversity in these landscapes, it is important to preserve and, if possible, increase the area of semi-natural habitat.

No abstract

No abstract