Linking Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Current Uncertainties and the Necessary Next Steps

Balvanera, Patricia; Siddique, Ilyas; Dee, Laura E.; Paquette, Alain; Isbell, Forest; Gonzalez, Andrew; Byrnes, Jarrett E. K.; O’Connor, Mary I.; Hungate, Bruce A.; Griffin, John N.

doi:10.1093/biosci/bit003

Cited by 322 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

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: 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

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: 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

“…Management based on a single ecosystem service is potentially problematic, as it might undermine the long-term provision of other ecosystem services (Balvanera et al 2014;Rodríguez et al 2006). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering carbon

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human well-being highly depends on ecosystem services and this dependence is expected to increase in the future with an increasing population and economic growth. Studies that investigate trade-offs between ecosystem services are urgently needed for informing policy-makers. We examine the trade-offs between a provisioning (revenues from timber selling) and regulating (carbon storage and sequestration) ecosystem services among seven alternative forest management regimes in a large boreal forest production landscape. First, we estimate the potential of the landscape to produce harvest revenues and store/sequester carbon across a 50-year time period. Then, we identify conflicts between harvest revenues and carbon storage and sequestration. Finally, we apply multiobjective optimization to find optimal combinations of forest management regimes that maximize harvest revenues and carbon storage/sequestration. Our results show that no management regime alone is able to either maximize harvest revenues or carbon services and that a combination of different regimes is always necessary. We also show that with a relatively little economic investment (5% decrease in harvest revenues), a substantial increase in carbon services could be attained (9% for carbon storage; 15-23% for carbon sequestration). We conclude that it is possible to achieve win-win situations applying diversified forest management planning at a landscape level.

show abstract

“…However, there is a danger that current 68 regional and local assessments of ecosystem functions and management advice do not 69 incorporate such risk assessments. This could result in poor management advice and 70 undervaluation of the importance of biodiversity, because whilst relatively low levels of 71 biodiversity can be adequate to provide current function [12], higher levels might be needed 72 to support similar levels of function under environmental change [2,[13][14][15][16][17][18]. Therefore, 73 there is a need to identify the characteristics of resilient ecosystem functions and capture 74 these in both predictive models and management guidance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Functions

Oliver

Heard

Isaac

et al. 2015

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

1,106

877

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Linking Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Current Uncertainties and the Necessary Next Steps

Cited by 322 publications

References 45 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

Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering carbon

Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Functions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About