Win‐wins for biodiversity and ecosystem service conservation depend on the trophic levels of the species providing services

Abstract

Confronted by significant impacts to ecosystems world‐wide, decision makers face the challenge of maintaining both biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services (ES). However, the objectives of managing biodiversity and supplying ES may not always be in concert, resulting in the need for trade‐offs. Understanding these potential trade‐offs is crucial for identifying circumstances under which conservation strategies designed to maximise either biodiversity or ES will result in win‐win or win‐lose outcomes. One important factor that may influence these outcomes are species interactions and the structure of the networks in which they are embedded. We combine optimisation and network theory to investigate the difference in species prioritisation and management outcomes when targeting biodiversity or ES, by considering trophic interactions between species. We analyse 360 simulated ecosystem networks with different ecosystem structures, including the trophic level of the species providing the ES, the number of ES considered, and the food web connectivity. We then illustrate the framework on a saltmarsh case study. We find that trade‐offs between biodiversity and ES depend on the network structure of the ecosystem being managed. The trophic level of the species providing the ES is an important determinant of optimal species protection priorities and the biodiversity‐ES trade‐offs. A strategy targeting ES leads to similar levels of biodiversity conservation (a win‐win situation) only when basal species provide the services. In contrast, food web connectivity and the number of services considered have little impact on biodiversity‐ES trade‐offs. Synthesis and applications. Our research provides the first optimisation model to examine trade‐offs between a biodiversity‐ or ecosystem service‐based approach for managing a network of interacting species that provide services. Importantly, results from considering species‐services interactions in ecosystem network dynamics can provide managers with quantitative insights to identify opportunities for win‐wins and or to avoid win‐loss outcomes, by focusing on the trophic level of the species providing services. Future research could build on our model to add multiple interaction types among species, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services to analyse optimal ecosystem management for multiple conservation objectives.

Linking changes in species–trait relationships and ecosystem function using a network analysis of traits

“…, Xiao et al. ). NAT directly links trait assemblages to shifts in functional diversity as a basis to address changes in the delivery of ecosystem functions, services with the concomitant impacts on people's values and wellbeing.…”

“…, Xiao et al. ), networks related to community structure that rely on multiple traits, and can therefore be linked to multiple functions, have not been widely applied (Bohan et al. ).…”

Assessing Vulnerability of Fish in the U.S. Marine Aquarium Trade

“…As a threat-based assessment tool, PSA does not consider other ecological and social objectives, such as phylogenetic uniqueness, ecological role in communities, economic considerations, or cultural and aesthetic significance (Bowen, 1999;Mace et al, 2007;Perry, 2010). Similarly, PSA analyses do not include information on the costs of management reform to determine how best to allocate resources (e.g., money, time, personnel) among different species or locations (Mace et al, 2007;Joseph et al, 2008), when species interact (Xiao et al, 2018), or under uncertainty (e.g., Polasky et al, 2011;Dee et al, 2017). By providing semi-quantitative information on relative threat levels, PSA serves as a useful starting point for a larger and more comprehensive assessment and management process (e.g., see the tiered-approach proposed in Fujita et al, 2014).…”

“…In addition, fisheries in both Indonesia and the Philippines are considered data-limited (Dee et al, 2014). We selected species to evaluate based on U.S. fish import records (based on data from Rhyne et al, 2015;Rhyne et al, 2017) from the available years (2000,2004,2005,2008,2009,2011), as well as importance within the marine aquarium trade according to published scientific literature and reports (Wood, 2001;Wabnitz et al, 2003;Rhyne et al, 2012b; Reef Protection International [RPI], 2013; Sustainable Aquarium Industry Association [SAIA], 2014) and informal surveys of fish species sold by major U.S. retailers. These species include 19 of the top 20 species imported by volume combined from both Indonesia and the Philippines (based on Rhyne et al, 2015;Rhyne et al, 2017; see the Supplementary Information for the full species list).…”

Foreword to the Special Issue on Natural Resource Mathematics

“…The main theme running through all the talks was balancing sustainable use of natural resources while simultaneously reducing threats to the environment, such as overexploitation, climate change, habitat disturbance, and invasive species [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Along the way, we were exposed to several new developments in ecological theory and new methodologies in optimisation, control, dynamical systems, and statistics [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24].Among the important works presented were several new findings yet to make their way into the literature, and hence, we decided a special issue in Environmental Modeling and Assessment could provide an ideal venue to highlight them. These were complemented by selected submissions to the journal that best fitted with the former.…”