Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Mouchet, Maud; Paracchini, Maria Luisa; Schulp, Catharina J.E.; Stürck, Julia; Verkerk, Pieter Johannes; Verburg, Peter H.; Lavorel, Sandra

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.026

Cited by 151 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results revealed four key findings. First, while avian biodiversity predicts landscape multifunctionality per se, outliers of landscape multifunctionality and avian biodiversity in this region are only weakly related after accounting for biophysical drivers that may cause multifunctionality and biodiversity to spatially covary (Mouchet et al., ). Thus, targets for biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality are neither spatially congruent nor in conflict.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…And while we are beginning to understand the effects of landscape structure on ecosystem services (Mitchell et al., ), more research is critically needed. For the sake of brevity we did not include landscape composition or structure as a potential drivers in identifying commonalities of bright spots in our study, but we suggest this should be a key future consideration, given the importance of landscape composition and structure in agricultural landscapes for biodiversity (Fahrig et al., ), for ecosystem services in general (Power, ), and for the provisioning of multiple ecosystem services (Mouchet et al., ). Spatial autocorrelation —Bright spot analyses inherently make use of highly spatial data, and as such these data are likely subject to spatial autocorrelation. In our analyses, we purposely did not account for spatial autocorrelation in our preliminary null biophysical models for two reasons: (a) our goal was not statistical inference, but rather the creation of a null model, and (b) we did not wish to blindly account for the spatial autocorrelation in the dataset when identifying the bright/dark spots, as our ultimate goal was to explore the commonalities and variations among and between bright/dark spots, including the very factors that may be driving the spatial autocorrelation (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bright spots in agricultural landscapes: Identifying areas exceeding expectations for multifunctionality and biodiversity

Frei

Renard

Mitchell

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture's influence on humanity is a dichotomy of promise and peril. Research on the food‐environment dilemma has highlighted the environmental consequences of food production, yet the identification of management solutions is an ongoing challenge. We suggest “bright spots” as a promising tool to identify levers of change by finding areas that exceed expectations for goals, such as agricultural landscape multifunctionality and biodiversity. We identified bright, dark and average spots within a complex agricultural landscape and explored the associated socioeconomic patterns. We found that areas exceeding expectations for biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality were neither spatially congruent nor in conflict. It was more common for areas to underperform (dark spots) for both biodiversity and multifunctionality than over perform for both (bright spots). While dark spots for multifunctionality were alike in their ecosystem service composition, bright spots were bright in multiple, diverse ways. The socioeconomic attributes that characterize bright and darks spots included both farm characteristics as well as farming practices, suggesting that both have potential to be levers of change. Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that while biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality show similar spatial patterns due to underlying biophysical drivers, managing for biodiversity or landscape multifunctionality alone will not implicitly achieve the other in this system. Bright spots (areas exceeding expectations) in multifunctionality were associated with many different combinations of ecosystem services, but dark spots were uniquely agricultural intensive areas devoted to maximizing crop production at the expense of all other services. From a management perspective, specific farm characteristics and farming practices may impact the potential for multifunctionality: increased mechanization, increased agricultural inputs and larger farm size and capital were associated with dark spots, while smaller farms with potentially greater space for innovation were associated with bright spots.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bright spots in agricultural landscapes: Identifying areas exceeding expectations for multifunctionality and biodiversity

Frei

Renard

Mitchell

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, we consider a bundle to mean those ES that covary spatially due to shared processes and controls underpinning them, as applied in Mouchet et al. (), rather than bundles with observed correlations in value, or bundles of similar type, e.g., provisioning, regulating. By modeling in virtual landscapes based on real topography we were able to explore the interaction between total area of natural landcover (in this case woodland) and the number of patches and edge density.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragmentation and thresholds in hydrological flow‐based ecosystem services

Thomas

Masante

Jackson

et al. 2020

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss and fragmentation of natural land cover due to expansion of agricultural areas is a global issue. These changes alter the configuration and composition of the landscape, particularly affecting those ecosystem services (benefits people receive from ecosystems) that depend on interactions between landscape components. Hydrological mitigation describes the bundle of ecosystem services provided by landscape features such as woodland that interrupt the flow of runoff to rivers. These services include sediment retention, nutrient retention and mitigation of overland water flow. The position of woodland in the landscape and the landscape topography are both important for hydrological mitigation. Therefore, it is crucial to consider landscape configuration and flow pathways in a spatially explicit manner when examining the impacts of fragmentation. Here we test the effects of landscape configuration using a large number (>7,000) of virtual landscape configurations. We created virtual landscapes of woodland patches within grassland, superimposed onto real topography and stream networks. Woodland patches were generated with user‐defined combinations of patch number and total woodland area, placed randomly in the landscape. The Ecosystem Service model used hydrological routing to map the “mitigated area” upslope of each woodland patch. We found that more fragmented woodland mitigated a greater proportion of the catchment. Larger woodland area also increased mitigation, however, this increase was nonlinear, with a threshold at 50% coverage, above which there was a decline in service provision. This nonlinearity suggests that the benefit of any additional woodland depends on two factors: the level of fragmentation and the existing area of woodland. Edge density (total edge of patches divided by area of catchment) was the best single metric in predicting mitigated area. Distance from woodland to stream was not a significant predictor of mitigation, suggesting that agri‐environment schemes planting riparian woodland should consider additional controls such as the amount of fragmentation in the landscape. These findings highlight the potential benefits of fragmentation to hydrological mitigation services. However, benefits for hydrological services must be balanced against any negative effects of fragmentation or habitat loss on biodiversity and other services.

show abstract

“…In deze studie richtten we ons niet expliciet op het zoeken naar 'esd-bundels', dit wil zeggen groepen van ecosysteemdiensten die ruimtelijk consistente associaties vormen en elkaar versterken of ondersteunen (zie bv. Crouzat et al (2015); Mouchet et al (2017) …”

Section: Ecosysteemdiensten En Andere Criteriaunclassified

Landgebruiksveranderingen waarderen in Vlaanderen

Reeth¹,

Alaerts²,

Stevens³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Cited by 151 publications

References 39 publications

Bright spots in agricultural landscapes: Identifying areas exceeding expectations for multifunctionality and biodiversity

Bright spots in agricultural landscapes: Identifying areas exceeding expectations for multifunctionality and biodiversity

Fragmentation and thresholds in hydrological flow‐based ecosystem services

Landgebruiksveranderingen waarderen in Vlaanderen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About