Ecosystem Boundaries

Banks-Leite, Cristina; Ewers, Robert M.

doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0021232

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…energy and nutrient flows) change abruptly in relation to those within a patch (Wiens et al ). Because boundaries differ in their permeability to material flows, the movement of materials occur over various temporal and spatial scales, which may dramatically alter material composition (Wiens et al , Banks‐Leite and Ewers ). Therefore, the movement of material may directly influence its stoichiometry, as nutrients are transformed in transit or used and discarded while crossing boundaries (Schade et al ).…”

Section: Impacts Of Spatial and Temporal Scales On The Stoichiometry mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial stoichiometry: cross‐ecosystem material flows and their impact on recipient ecosystems and organisms

Sitters

Atkinson

Guelzow

et al. 2015

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-ecosystem material flows, in the form of inorganic nutrients, detritus and organisms, spatially connect ecosystems and impact food web dynamics. To date research on material flows has focused on the impact of the quantity of these flows and largely ignored their elemental composition, or quality. However, the ratios of elements like carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus can influence the impact material flows have on food web interactions through stoichiometric mismatches between resources and consumers. The type and movement of materials likely vary in their ability to change stoichiometric constraints within the recipient ecosystem and materials may undergo changes in their own stoichiometry during transport. In this literature review we evaluate the importance of cross-ecosystem material flows within the framework of ecological stoichiometry. We explore how movement in space and time impacts the stoichiometry of material flow, as these transformations are essential to consider when assessing the ability of these flows to impact food web productivity and ecosystem functioning. Our review suggests that stoichiometry of cross-ecosystem material flows are highly dynamic and undergo changes during transport across the landscape or from human influence. These material flows can impact recipient organisms if they change stoichiometry of the abiotic medium, or provide resources that have a different stoichiometry to in situ resources. They might also alter consumer excretion rates, in turn altering the availability of nutrients in the recipient ecosystem. These alterations in stoichiometric constraints of recipient organisms can have cascading trophic effects and shape food web dynamics. We highlight significant gaps in the literature and suggest new avenues for research that explore how cross-ecosystem material flows impact recipient ecosystems when considering differences in stoichiometric quality, their movement through the landscape and across ecosystem boundaries, and the nutritional constraints of the recipient organisms.

show abstract

Section: Impacts Of Spatial and Temporal Scales On The Stoichiometry mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial stoichiometry: cross‐ecosystem material flows and their impact on recipient ecosystems and organisms

Sitters

Atkinson

Guelzow

et al. 2015

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, the boundaries of a natural ecosystem are hard to define because adjacent ecosystems are often connected through flows of energy, materials, and organisms (Banks-Leite & Ewers, 2009). The same applies to conceptualizations of SUPIEs, where the flow of financial, human, and other resources can easily cross the boundaries of an individual ecosystem.…”

Section: Conceptualizing Supies: How Does the Environment Help Birds mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Helping birds to fly: Introducing start-up incubation ecosystems

Novotny¹,

Rasmussen²,

Clausen³

et al. 2020

Research Handbook on Start-Up Incubation Ecosystems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research handbook on start-up incubation ecosystems make up an ecological system or ecosystem. Similar to natural ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems comprise complex and diverse networks of organizations, individuals, and other environmental components that interact to influence entrepreneurial activity and economic functioning in a particular context, region, or locality. A fundamental feature of ecosystems, either natural or entrepreneurial, is that each organism/organization must use some energy/resources that they receive from other organisms/ organizations to survive. Like organisms in natural ecosystems, innovative new firms, often referred to as start-ups, are embedded in an ecosystem which helps or hinders their access to resources and thus influences their development and impact (Spigel & Harrison, 2018; Spilling, 1996). Many initiatives have been implemented to support start-ups, such as incubators (Bergek & Norrman, 2008), accelerators (Shankar & Shepherd, 2018), outside assistants (Chrisman & McMullan, 2004) and government funding mechanisms (Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2012). These initiatives aim to provide "life energy" in the form of various resources for start-ups to survive, grow and contribute to social and economic impact. Studies often look at these support mechanisms in isolation, while their effectiveness depends on the context in which they operate (Brown, Gregson, & Mason, 2016). Different natural ecosystems, for example, a tropical evergreen forest and a desert, differ in both the numbers and types of species as well as in physical components such as vegetation, soil type, rainfall, and temperature. Such contextual differences make it hard to compare populations in different locations because the variation in species richness and abundance is influenced by indigenous environmental factors (Naeem et al., 1999). Similarly, when comparing firms in two different ecosystems, the variations in the number and success of start-ups is partly due to differences in various framework conditions, available resources, and support mechanisms. While firms in poorer ecosystems with weaker prospects for growth seem to be less successful at first sight, they may be quite effective in adjusting their goals and means to their environment. By the same token, policymakers must consider the characteristics of a particular context before setting economic goals or emulating practices of ecosystems with entirely different resource profiles. Hence, the ecosystem analogy is valuable to entrepreneurship research because it conceptually addresses the need for more knowledge on how start-ups interact with and are in turn influenced by, their environment (Audretsch, Cunningham,

show abstract

“…Through the factor analysis of cell-based ecosystem service maps showing different indicators, two main types of ecosystems, mountains and flatlands, were extracted. Synergetic (e.g., underground water and carbon; farms, CO2, and erosion) and trade-off (e.g., rice paddies vs. underground water and carbon; scenic quality vs. farms, CO2, and erosion) relationships between the two ecosystem service types (mountains and agriculture) and their boundaries were identified, providing one method of finding the main ecosystems and boundaries that are often discussed theoretically (Banks-Leite & Ewers, 2009;Prieto-Torres & Rojas-Soto, 2016;Saunders & Briggs, 2002); beyond administrative districts (Haines-Young, Potschin, & Kienast, 2012;Hamann, Biggs, & Reyers, 2015;Jopke et al, 2015;Oakley et al, 2018;Queiroz et al, 2015;Raudsepp-Hearne, C, Peterson, & Bennett, 2010;Schulp et al, 2014). These results are consistent with previous studies that have grouped items and shown ecosystem service synergies and trade-offs, and examined how the corresponding areas were distributed in space (Früh-Müller et al, 2016;Qiu & Turner, 2013).…”

Section: Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundary Setting for Ecosystem Services by Factor Analysis

Lee

Kim²,

Kim³

et al. 2019

IRSPSD International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem service assessment maps are an important form of data, showing the flow and characteristics of ecosystem services. However, there has been a lack of research on the spatial boundaries of synergetic and trade-off relationships among different types of ecosystem services based on the microscopic characteristics of ecosystem maps. Therefore, the boundaries of ecosystems were identified in this study using factor analysis of indicators in ecosystem service maps. Ecosystems were mapped for each indicator in each cell, and then factor analysis was used to combine all indicators into one map. Analysis of Seocheon in central South Korea shows the boundaries of two ecosystem types: a mountainous region with abundant underground water and carbon stocks that lack rice paddies, and flatlands with high crop production and a lack of scenic views. The spatial types of ecosystems in which synergy and trade-offs occur were identified by indicator, and these can be used as evidentiary material for spatial planning in order to maximize the function of each ecosystem service.

show abstract

Ecosystem Boundaries

Cited by 11 publications

References 48 publications

Spatial stoichiometry: cross‐ecosystem material flows and their impact on recipient ecosystems and organisms

Spatial stoichiometry: cross‐ecosystem material flows and their impact on recipient ecosystems and organisms

Introduction: Helping birds to fly: Introducing start-up incubation ecosystems

Boundary Setting for Ecosystem Services by Factor Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About