A review of regulation ecosystem services and disservices from faunal populations and potential impacts of agriculturalisation on their provision, globally

Abstract

Land use and cover change (LUCC) is the main cause of natural ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss and can cause a decrease in ecosystem service provision. Animal populations are providers of some key regulation services: pollination, pest and disease control and seed dispersal, the so-called faunal ecosystem services (FES). Here we aim to give an overview on the current and future status of regulation FES in response to change from original habitat to agricultural land globally. FES are much more tightly linked to wildlife populations and biodiversity than are most ecosystem services, whose determinants are largely climatic and related to vegetation structure. Degradation of ecosystems by land use change thus has much more potential to affect FES. In this scoping review, we summarise the main findings showing the importance of animal populations as FES providers and as a source of ecosystem disservices; underlying causes of agriculturalisation impacts on FES and the potential condition of FES under future LUCC in relation to the expected demand for FES globally. Overall, studies support a positive relationship between FES provision and animal species richness and abundance. Agriculturalisation has negative effects on FES providers due to landscape homogenisation, habitat fragmentation and loss, microclimatic changes and development of population imbalance, causing species and population losses of key fauna, reducing services whilst enhancing disservices. Since evidence suggests an increase in FES demand worldwide is required to support increased farming, it is imperative to improve the understanding of agriculturalisation on FES supply and distribution. Spatial conservation prioritisation must factor in faunal ecosystem functions as the most biodiversity-relevant of all ecosystem services and that which most closely links sites of service provision of conservation value with nearby sites of service use to provide ecosystem services of agricultural and economic value.

Local Community Perceptions on Landscape Change, Ecosystem Services, Climate Change, and Livelihoods in Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe

“…The provincial governor, without the knowledge of the Minister of Environment, gave permits to the Chitsa community to settle, practice crop cultivation, and graze within the park [41,45]. over the past 20 years, the GCT successfully increased the number of wildlife in the Gonarezhou National Park, endorsed by 73% of the community [80]. This shows the importance of partnerships in natural resource management.…”

“…Nevertheless, despite the abundance of wild animals, these were not available since they are protected in the park and it is criminal to hunt and be seen with game meat. The wild animals are a provisional service because the community also sees them as a source of food [80]. Despite the boom in animal numbers, the community does not see how it benefits their livelihoods because conservation without impacting people's livelihoods is meaningless to them.…”

Quantification and mapping of the nutrient regulation ecosystem service demand on a local scale

“…Power (2010) mentions a different perspective and states that the agroecosystem provides and consumes ES, simultaneously. In order to ensure for instance a stable supply of the provisioning ES crop production, agroecosystems are strongly dependent on other (mainly regulating) ES, such as nutrient regulation (Power 2010;Burkhard et al 2012b;Gutierrez-Arellano and Mulligan 2018). In that sense, the excess amount of nutrients entering the environment has been defined as the indicator for the ecosystem service nutrient regulation.…”

“…Thereby, the ES concept has been proven to be a suitable approach for assessing the nutrient situation within the agricultural context (Power 2010;Willemen et al 2017). The suitability of the ES concept is supported in particular by the strong dependence of agricultural systems on ES on the one hand and the provision of ES, e.g.in the form of crop production, on the other hand (Power 2010;Gutierrez-Arellano and Mulligan 2018).…”

Noninvasive Phenotyping of Plant–Pathogen Interaction: Consecutive In Situ Imaging of Fluorescing Pseudomonas syringae, Plant Phenolic Fluorescence, and Chlorophyll Fluorescence in Arabidopsis Leaves

“…Plants are regularly attacked by several pathogens, such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, oomycetes, nematodes, and others. Due to a lowered performance of an infected plant, pathogen invasion can lead into severe economical losses on economically important field and forest sites (Gutierrez-Arellano and Mulligan, 2018). To defend themselves, plants have developed various strategies in which not only secondary but also carbohydrate metabolism plays complex roles (Trouvelot et al, 2014; Jammer et al, 2015).…”