Does nature conservation enhance ecosystem services delivery?

Eastwood, Antonia; Brooker, Rob W.; Irvine, R. Justin; Artz, Rebekka; Norton, Lisa; Bullock, James M.; Ross, Louise; Fielding, Debbie A.; Ramsay, Scot L.; Roberts, Jamie; Anderson, Wineaster; Dugan, D.; Cooksley, Susan; Pakeman, Robin J.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.001

Cited by 72 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, PAs appear to be set to continue to deliver high biodiversity benefits, even if the relative abundances and identities of the species present changes. Regulatory ecosystem services provided by PAs may also continue to operate despite a changing biota (Eastwood et al ., ). Empirical evidence, however, remains sparse.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The performance of protected areas for biodiversity under climate change

Thomas

Gillingham

2015

Biol J Linn Soc Lond

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global environmental changes have been driving large‐scale shifts in the distributions of species and in the composition of biological communities. This has thrown the continuing value of Protected Areas (PAs) into question, given that PAs remain static, whereas species move, and they are predicted to continue to move under future climate scenarios. We consider empirical evidence on the observed performance of PAs during the last 40 years of anthropogenic climate change. Despite some losses of populations and species, PAs have continued to accommodate many species, which have shifted to higher elevations, to polewards‐facing aspects, and into cooler microhabitats within PAs as the climate has warmed. Even when species have declined in some PAs, they often remain more abundant inside than outside PAs. Furthermore, losses from some PAs are offset by increases in others. As species expand their ranges polewards across fragmented landscapes in response to climate warming, the majority are disproportionately colonizing PAs as they go. Hence, PA networks are acting as stepping‐stones of suitable breeding conditions and facilitating range shifts, with many species remaining protected across PA networks as a whole. Finally, there is some evidence that appropriate management of PAs may be able to slow climate‐related declines and accelerate expansions. The 40‐year track record of species responding to environmental change in PAs suggests that networks of PAs have been essential to biodiversity conservation and are likely to continue to fulfil this role in the future. The challenge for managers will be to consider the balance between retaining current species and encouraging colonization by new species. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, ●●, ●●–●●.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The performance of protected areas for biodiversity under climate change

Thomas

Gillingham

2015

Biol J Linn Soc Lond

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2017) demonstrated that only half of the areas in the Columbian Andes, where biodiversity and ecosystem service supply is high, lay within protected zones. Eastwood et al () conducted a paired approach at the landscape scale on protected and unprotected areas in Britain and concluded that protected areas provide higher levels of cultural and regulating ecosystem services. Similarly, Castro et al () found that protected areas in arid landscapes in Spain supplied marginally higher levels of regulating services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

A new method for assessing river ecosystem services and its application to rivers in Scotland with and without nature conservation designations

Gilvear

Large

Tree

et al. 2019

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a paired analysis, we describe a method for evaluating the potential of rivers with different physical characteristics to provide ecosystem services. Scores based on an extensive scientific literature review and expert opinion were applied to four sets of rivers in Scotland, with each pair comprising one river with a statutory nature conservation designation and one where such designations were largely absent. Data on physical habitat features and land cover were extracted manually from Google Earth™, based upon a previously published method expanded here to take account of cultural ecosystem services. Twenty physical habitat features and land‐cover types and 13 ecosystem services (four provisioning, three regulating, and six cultural) were used in the analysis. Notable developments on the earlier approach included the full integration of cultural ecosystem services alongside provisioning, regulating, and supporting services; introduction of confidence levels to river feature–ecosystem service linkages; and incorporation of valley floor surface area into one of the two scoring systems. Ecosystem scores for 500 m reaches along each river from source to mouth were calculated using Microsoft Excel, with results showing high reach‐to‐reach variability within individual rivers and significant differences between paired rivers. The four rivers with statutory nature conservation designations provided a greater range and typically higher ecosystem service scores than those with little or no designation, a result that has significant implications for river conservation and for framing catchment‐level conservation policy.

show abstract

“…Conversely, ecosystem services, such as clean water or erosion control, have been rarely used in conservation planning, apart from justifying biodiversity conservation needs (Balvanera et al ., ; Egoh et al ., ). Even the ecosystem services have been only used as justification in conservation planning, recent studies have shown that ecosystem services are more found in protected areas when compared to non‐protected areas (Castro et al ., ; Eastwood et al ., ). Still, it is unclear the extent to which biodiversity could function as a surrogate for ecosystem services when defining protected areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial associations of ecosystem services and biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning

Manhães

Mazzochini

Oliveira‐Filho

et al. 2016

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Protected areas are frequently defined on the basis of biological importance. Ecosystem services are expected to be under protection when biodiversity is preserved; however, new approaches are needed to confirm this statement. We evaluated how spatial associations between ecosystem services and plant biodiversity on a large spatial scale influence their representativeness in current protected areas. Location Brazilian seasonally tropical dry forest (Caatinga). Methods We produced woody plant biodiversity maps (species richness, narrow‐range species richness and beta diversity) using species distribution modelling. We estimated regulating services (water purification, carbon storage and erosion control), provisioning services (water supply, fodder and agriculture) and supporting services (water balance, net primary productivity and soil fertility) using primary data and a proxy‐based approach. We performed spatial correlation analyses between biodiversity and ecosystem services using Pearson's correlation test. After estimating the percentage of hotspot areas of biodiversity and ecosystem services presented in two types of protected areas (strict protection and sustainable use), we compared it to expected distribution by null model. Results Mostly weak and intermediary positive correlations arose among biodiversity and ecosystem services (beta diversity with water balance and species richness with water purification and carbon storage). Negative correlations occurred among water balance with both species richness and narrow‐range species richness. Strict protection areas were well represented in terms of carbon storage and underrepresented for fodder and agriculture. Sustainable use protected areas were important for water balance. Plant biodiversity variables were not represented in current protected areas. Main conclusions Positive correlations between biodiversity and ecosystem services do not assure the protection of these targets in protected areas. Surrogates choice based only on spatial correlations might not effectively protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Selection of priority areas must include biodiversity and ecosystem services as distinct conservation targets.

show abstract

Does nature conservation enhance ecosystem services delivery?

Cited by 72 publications

References 37 publications

The performance of protected areas for biodiversity under climate change

The performance of protected areas for biodiversity under climate change

A new method for assessing river ecosystem services and its application to rivers in Scotland with and without nature conservation designations

Spatial associations of ecosystem services and biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About