Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review

Harrison, Paula A.; Berry, Pam; Simpson, Gillian; Haslett, John; Blicharska, Małgorzata; Bucur, M.; Dunford, R. W.; Egoh, Benis N.; García‐Llorente, Marina; Geamănă, Nicoleta; Geertsema, W.; Lommelen, Els; Meiresonne, Linda; Turkelboom, Francis

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006

Cited by 567 publications

(402 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

374

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the flow and retention of water and nutrients) or indirectly through positive effects on biodiversity (Wiens 2002;Lovett et al 2005;Fahrig et al 2011;Stein et al 2014). Species richness is positively correlated to heterogeneity in land cover (Stein et al 2014) and, although many uncertainties remain, species richness and other biodiversity indicators are positively correlated to ESs (Balvanera et al 2006;Cardinale et al 2012;Mace et al 2012;Balvanera et al 2014;Harrison et al 2014). These direct and indirect effects suggest that the capacity of some ESs is affected by landscape heterogeneity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…When studies from the tropics were included this is mentioned in the text. Following previous literature reviews (Harrison et al 2014;Stein et al 2014), the set of papers was next expanded using the snowballing technique. The snowballing technique was used because the initial set of papers primarily returned papers on general search terms, whereas papers on specific terms, such as patch size, were largely absent.…”

Section: Review Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Humans structure landscapes for the production of food, fibre and fuel, commonly resulting in declines of non-provisioning ecosystem services (ESs). Heterogeneous landscapes are capable of providing multiple ESs, and landscape configuration-spatial arrangement of land cover in the landscape-is expected to affect ES capacity. However, the majority of ES mapping studies have not accounted for landscape configuration. Objectives Our objective is to assess and quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ES capacity. A review of empirical evidence for configuration effects on the capacity of ten ESs reveals that for four ESs configuration is relevant but typically ignored in ES quantification. For four ESs we quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ESs using Scotland as a case study. Methods Each ES was quantified through modelling, respectively ignoring or accounting for configuration. The difference in ES capacity between the two ES models was determined at multiple spatial scales. Results Configuration affected the capacity of all four ESs mapped, particularly at the cell and watershed scale. At the scale of Scotland most local effects averaged out. Flood control and sediment retention responded strongest to configuration. ESs were affected by different aspects of configuration, thus requiring specific methods for mapping each ES. Conclusions Accounting for configuration is important for the assessment of certain ESs at the cell and watershed scale. Incorporating configuration in landscape management provides opportunities for spatial optimization of ES capacity, but the diverging response of ESs to configuration suggests that accounting for configuration involves trade-offs between ESs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Review Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Not only are they of high value in their own right, because of their importance to human livelihoods, but their inclusion provides a means of facilitating and encouraging wider stakeholder consultation on the identification of key sites for wild plant diversity outside the scientific and protected area communities. Studies have demonstrated a direct positive link between maintaining or enhancing wild biodiversity and human livelihoods and well-being, through the ecosystem services provided by ecological communities, habitats and species diversity (Xu et al 2009;Sunderland 2011;Peh et al 2013;Fisher et al 2014;Harrison et al 2014;Sandifer et al 2015). However, this link is not widely perceived in many parts of the world and protection of sites of high biodiversity value is only likely to be achieved where there is a clear and demonstrable benefit to local communities.…”

Section: Consultation On Revised Ipa Selection Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the severe threats to plant habitats and high levels of extinction risk for plant species in many parts of the world, plant conservation priorities are often poorly represented in national and global frameworks because of a lack of data in an accessible and consistent format to inform conservation decision making. The Important Plant Areas (IPAs) criteria system offers a pragmatic yet scientifically rigorous means of delivering these datasets, enabling informed national-or regional-scale conservation prioritisation, and contributing significantly towards global prioritisation systems including the International Union for Conservation of Nature Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) Standard. In this paper, we review the IPA rationale and progress on IPA identification to date, including the perceived limitations of the process and how these may be overcome. We then present a revised set of criteria for use globally, developed through the combined experiences of IPA -017-1336-6 identification over the past decade and a half and through a recent global consultation process. An overview of how the revised IPA criteria can work alongside the newly published KBA Standard is also provided. IPA criteria are based around a sound, scientific, global framework which acknowledges the practical problems of gathering plant and habitat data in many regions of the world, and recognises the role of peer reviewed expert opinion in the selection process. National and sub-national engagement in IPA identification is essential, providing a primary route towards long term conservation of key sites for plant diversity. The IPA criteria can be applied to the conservation of all organism groups within the plant and fungal kingdoms.

show abstract

“…However, the majority of studies to date have focused on single services (Seppelt et al 2011, Mitchell et al 2013 or one-to-one relationships; studies considering several ecosystem services are urgently required (Bennett et al 2009, Howe et al 2014. Moreover, although knowledge on the role of biodiversity for the supply of ecosystem services is improving (Cardinale et al 2012), few empirical studies have focused on understanding the social-ecological processes that underpin services (Bennett et al 2009, Lavorel andGrigulis 2012) and the effects of governance decisions and environmental change on their supply (Harrison et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds

García‐Llorente¹,

Iniesta-Arandia²,

Willaarts³

et al. 2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Martín-López. 2015. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. ABSTRACT. Biophysical and social systems are linked to form social-ecological systems whose sustainability depends on their capacity to absorb uncertainty and cope with disturbances. In this study, we explored the key biophysical and socio-cultural factors underlying ecosystem service supply in two semiarid watersheds of southern Spain. These included variables associated with the role that freshwater flows and biodiversity play in securing the system's capacity to sustain essential ecosystem services and their relationship with social demand for services, local water governance, and land-use intensification. Our results reveal the importance of considering the invisible dimensions of water and biodiversity, i.e. green freshwater flows and trait-based indicators, because of their relevance to the supply of ecosystem services. Furthermore, they uncover the importance of traditional irrigation canals, a local water governance system, in maintaining the ecosystems' capacity to supply services. The study also highlights the complex trade-offs that occur because of the spatial mismatch between ecosystem service supply (upstream) and ecosystem service demand (downstream) in watersheds. Finally, we found that land-use intensification generally resulted in losses of the biophysical factors that underpin the supply of some ecosystem services, increases in social demand for less diversified services, and the abandonment of local governance practices. Attempts to manage social-ecological systems toward sustainability at the local scale should identify the key biophysical and socio-cultural factors that are essential for maintaining ecosystem services and should recognize existing interrelationships between them. Land-use management should also take into account ecosystem service trade-offs and the consequences resulting from land-use intensification.

show abstract

Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review

Cited by 567 publications

References 81 publications

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About